iimi    ilim  H  !j[  m' 
If     iHiiJIJI'l     ill 

iii! 


ilii 

I  Ipil! 


iii!  |i|i!li|l!illi!!'il!iiii 

!  Iiiii     iii! «'™ 


'Hh 


i     ti 


I  J 


'Iii  ii  jiii  IP!  I  ii>i'ii<' 
iiiiip!!  I 

jilnHtiniHiliutiti 


I  Mi 

Iii';'!! 


II    i 


il!.|l!!i 


REESE  LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Received  ,  igo     . 

Accession  No.  •  *  1  ^'  3  8.   class  No . 


Nefa  Testament  Jgantilroote 

EDITED  BY 
SHAILEB    MATHEWS 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


ficw  Cestament  Randboohs 

EDITED  BY  SHAILER  MATHEWS 

THE   UNIVERSITY   OF    CHICAGO 


A  series  of  volumes  presenting  briefly  and  intelligibly  th* 
results  of  the  scientific  study  of  the  New  Testament.  Each  vol- 
ume covers  its  own  field,  and  is  intended  for  the  general  reader  as 
■well  as  the  special  student. 

Arrangements  have  been  made  for  the  following  volumes :  — 

THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT.  Professor  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  [Eeady. 

THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OP  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT.  Professor  Henry  S.  Nash,  Cambridge  Divinity 
School.  [Readt/. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  BOOKS  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
Professor  B.  Wisner  Bacon,  Yale  Divinity  School.         [Eeady. 

THE  HISTORICAL  GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAIplNT. 
Professor  J.  R.  S.  Sterrett,  Cornell  University. 

THE  HISTORY  OP  NEW  TESTAMENT  TIMES  IN  PALESTINE. 
Professor  Shailer  Mathews,  The  University  of  Chicago. 

[Ready. 

THE  LIPE  OP  PAUL.  President  Rush  Rhees,  The  University 
of  Rochester. 

THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  Professor  C.  W. 
VoTAw,  The  University  of  Chicago. 

THE  TEACHING  OP  JESUS.  Professor  George  B.  Stevens, 
Yale. Divinity  School.  [Ready. 

THE  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Pro- 
fessor E.  P.  Gould.  [Ready. 

THE  ETHICS  OP  JESUS.  Professor  Francis  G.  Peabody,  Har- 
vard Divinity  School. 

THE  HISTORY  OP  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE  UNTIL  EUSEBIUS. 

Professor  J.  W.  Platner,  Harvard  Divinity  School. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


BY 


GEORGE  BARKER  STEVENS,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

I* 

DWIQHT  PROFESSOR  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 
IN  YALE  UNIVERSITY 


Neto  gorft 
THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1901 


AU  rights  reserved 


^7 


COPTBIGHT,   1901, 

bt  the  macmillan  company. 


NorbJoaU  l^xees 

J.  8.  Gushing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


TO 

E\)t  aKeijcrtttU 

CHARLES  MELLEN  TYLER,  M.A.,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR   IN   CORNELL   UNIVERSITY 

I  Dedicate  This  Volume 
IN  sincere  gratitude  and  affection 


91038 


PREFACE 

Modern  theology  concentrates  its  attention  more 
and  more  upon  Jesus,  —  his  life,  character,  and  teach- 
ing. The  numerous  Lives  of  Christ  and  the  many- 
treatises  upon  different  aspects  of  his  doctrine,  which 
have  appeared  within  recent  years,  attest  the  eager 
interest  which  the  Christian  world  feels  in  his  person 
and  history.  The  diminished  emphasis  which,  by, 
many  schools  of  thought,  is  now  placed  upon  other 
objects  of  religious  and  theological  import — such  as 
the  letter  of  Scripture  and  ecclesiastical  tradition  — 
has  served  to  increase  the  stress  which  is  laid  upon 
the  supreme  significance  of  Christ  for  the  Christian 
knowledge  of  God.  The  dimming  of  other  lights  has 
but  enhanced  the  brightness  of  his  glory. 

The  aim  of  this  volume  is  to  aid  in  clarifying  the 
meaning  of  Christ's  life  and  work  by  setting  forth  the 
principles  of  his  teaching  in  a  clear,  succinct,  and  sys- 
tematic form.  The  effort  has  been  made  to  translate 
the  thought  of  Jesus  into  modern  terms,  and  so  to 
correlate  the  different  elements  of  his  teaching  as  to 
exhibit  its  inner  unity.  His  sayings  have  also  been 
brought  into  frequent  comparison  with  the  Jewish 
vii 


viii  PREFACE 

religious  ideas  of  his .  age,  in  order  to  exhibit  the 
historical  background  on  which  his  teaching  was  pre- 
sented, and  thus  to  bring  out  into  clearer  relief  its 
striking  independence  and  originality. 

The  volume  is  designed  as  a  text-book  for  schools 
and  Bible  classes  and  as  a  manual  for  private  study. 
It  is  hoped  that  it  will  also  prove  useful  to  students 
of  theology  and  ministers  in  their  preparation  for  the 
work  of  teaching. 

GEORGE  BARKER  STEVENS. 

Yale  University, 
July  13, 1901. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PA6B 

Jewish  Religious  Beliefs  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  .  1 
The  historical  background  of  New  Testament  teach- 
ing—  The  legal  and  the  prophetic  tendencies  in  Juda- 
ism —  The  Jewish  doctrine  of  God  and  that  of  Jesus 
contrasted  —  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  of  the  Messianic  King — Reflections  of  these  views 
in  the  New  Testament  —  Jesus'  doctrine  in  contrast 
with  them  —  Jewish  doctrine  of  salvation  —  Its  funda- 
mental difference  from  that  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Records  of  Jesus'  Words  and  Deeds  ...  19 
The  oral  Gospel  —  Beginnings  of  evangelical  litera- 
ture—  Patristic  testimony  concerning  the  Synoptics 
—  The  Logia — Two-source  theory  of  the  Synoptics  — 
Characteristics  of  the  three  Synoptics  —  Historical 
value  of  these  records  —  The  fourth  Gospel — Pecu- 
liarities of  its  type  of  teaching. 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Methods  of  Jesus'  Teaching  ....      33 

Jesus'  teaching  contrasted  with  that  of  the  scribes 
—  His  dialectic  —  Outward  forms  of  his  teaching  — 
The  parable  —  Its  difference  from  the  fable,  the  myth, 
the  proverb,  and  the  allegory  —  The  interpretation  of 
parables. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  IV 

PAGE 

Jesus'  Attitude  toward  the  Old  Testament      .        .      47 

Jesus'  teaching  has  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament 
—  Yet  is  freely  developed  —  Solution  of  this  seeming 
contradiction  by  the  principle  of  fulfilment — Jesus' 
attitude  toward  the  sacrificial  system,  the  ceremonial 
law,  the  Sabbath  —  Examples  of  his  fulfilment  of  the 
law  —  Scope  of  the  principle. 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Kingdom  of  God 58 

The  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  in  the  later  Judaism  —  Jesus'  conception : 
the  kingdom  universal,  spiritual,  and  both  present 
and  future  —  Definitions  —  The  place  of  the  kingdom 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Father  in  Heaven 70 

Central  place  of  God's  fatherhood  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  —  God  the  Father  of  all  men  —  The  import 
of  man's  sonship  to  God  —  How  Jesus  fulfils  the  Old 
Testament  idea  of  God  —  "He  that  hath  seen  me 
hath  seen  the  Father." 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Son  of  Man 81 

Use  of  the  term  in  the  Old  Testament  —  Develop- 
ment of  its  Messianic  meaning  —  Its  use  in  the 
Synoptics  —  Theories  respecting  its  import  —  Sketch 
of  the  "Aramaic  theory  "  — Reasons  for  regarding  it 
as  a  Messianic  designation. 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Son  of  God       ...  ....      95 

The  use  of  the  term  in  the  Old  Testament  —  In 
later  Jewish  literature  —  In  the  Synoptics  —  In  the 


CONTENTS  xi 

PA6B 


fourth  Gospel  —  Designates  the  special  object  of  the 
Father's  love  and  favor  —  New  Testament  use  of 
the  title  distinguished  from  the  later  theological 
meaning — The  beginnings  of  speculative  Christology. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Value  and  Destiny  of  Man 106 

Jesus'  estimate  of  the  veorth  of  man  —  His  doctrine 
of  sin  —  Reasons  for  his  divergence  from  the  popular 
views — The  pericope  adulterae  —  Jesus  did  not  pro- 
nounce sweeping  judgments  on  human  nature  —  Did 
not  teach  "total  depravity" — The  sin  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  —  The  basis  of  the  belief  in  immortality. 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Natural  and  Spiritual  Worlds  ....  117 
The  problem  of  Jesus'  knowledge  —  Jesus'  view 
and  interpretation  of  nature  —  His  attitude  toward 
social  joys  —  The  family  and  divorce  —  Private  prop- 
erty — Not  an  ascetic  —  Civil  authority — Not  a  teacher 
of  science  or  criticism  —  "  Demoniacal  possession  "  — 
Spoke  the  language  of  his  age. 

CHAPTER  XI 

The  Religion  of  a  Good  Life 130 

Jesus'  doctrine  of  righteousness  —  Meaning  and  re- 
quirements of  love  —  Forgiveness  —  The  passive  vir- 
tues —  Self-respect  —  Charity — Worship — Deeds  and 
services  —  The  grace  and  generosity  of  God  —  Condi- 
tions on  which  love  bestows  its  blessings. 

CHAPTER  XII 

The  Means  of  Salvation 140 

The  conditions  of  salvation  —  Jesus  saves  (1)  by 
teaching,  (2)  by  personal  example  and  influence, 
(3)  by  his  death — Necessity  for  his  death  —  His  blood 


XU  CONTENTS 


shed  for  many — Theories  concerning  the  saving  sig- 
nificance of  Jesus'  death  —  Statements  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  —  Relation  of  his  death  to  his  life-work  in 
general  —  Its  relation  to  the  ethical  nature  of  God 
and  to  human  sin. 

CHAPTER   XIII 

The  Believing  Community 150 

Earlier  and  later  meanings  of  "  church"  — The  two 
passages  in  Matthew  in  which  the  word  occurs  —  Dis- 
cipline in  the  congregation  —  Binding  and  loosing  — 
The  power  of  the  ke^s  —  The  "primacy  "  of  Peter  — 
The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  —  Why  a  Christian  - 
society  was  necessary  —  The  Christian  and  the  Jewish 
Church  —  The  "great  commission" — The  career  of 
the  Church  in  history. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

The  Second  Coming 161 

In  connection  with  the  tour  of  the  twelve  —  Within 
the  lifetime  of  the  hearers  —  In  close  connection  with 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  —  Shall  be  witnessed  by  the  high 
priest  —  Referred  to  in  the  parables  —  Summary  of 
the  facts  —  Proposed  explanations  of  the  difficulties 
which  they  present — The  alternative  —  Conclusion 
reached  —  Its  relation  to  the  current  theories  — 
Christ's  coming  in  John. 

CHAPTER   XV 

The  Resurrection  and  Judgment 177 

Resurrection  in  the  Synoptic  teaching  —  Its  relation 
to  Jewish  thought  —  The  subject  as  presented  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  —  Jesus'  view  ethical  — The  "day"  of 
judgment  —  The  parable  of  judgment  —  Various  inter- 
pretations—  Johannine  doctrine  of  judgment  —  The 
principle  of  judgment. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

CHAPTER  I 

JEWISH  RELIGIOUS   BELIEFS   IN   THE   TIME   OP  JESUS  ^ 

It  is  now  generally  recognized  among  students  of  Importance 
the  New  Testament  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  right  ?g^,J^®  ®"^" 
understanding  of  it  to  study  the  Jewish  religious  ideas 
which  were  current  at  the  time  when  its  books  were 
written.  These  ideas  constitute  a  background  on  which 
the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  stands  forth  in 
clear  relief.  Accordingly  we  find  that  most  recent 
writers  who  treat  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  take  full 
account  of  the  religious  beliefs  which  were  common  in 
his  time.  I  propose,  in  this  introductory  chapter,  to 
set  forth  some  of  the  leading  religious  ideas  which 
were  current  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  with  a  view  to  illus- 
trating the  principal  likenesses  and  differences  between 
his  teaching  and  the  religious  opinions  of  his  age. 

The  New  Testament  abounds  with  references  to  the  Allusions  in 
thought-world  of  Jesus.      His   own    discourses   and  Jo  uS""^^^^^ 

parables  make  frequent  allusions  to  the  tenets  of  the  thought- 
world  of 
1  General  References :    Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the   Jesus. 
Time  of  Jesus  Christ ;  Hausrath  and  Mathews  on  New  Testa- 
ment   Times ;   Wendt,   Teaching  of  Jesus,  Vol.  I,  Section  i ; 
Toy,  Judaism  and   Chnstianity ;   Schiirer,  Die  Predigt  Jesu 
Christi  in  ihrem  Verhdltniss  zum  alien  Testament  und  zum 
Judenthum;  Bousset,  Jesu  Predigt  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zum 
Judenthum ;   Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  ch.  i ; 
Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  ch.  i;  Baldensperger,  Das 
Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  Theil  I ;   Weber,  Judische  Theologie ; 
Goodspeed,  IsraeVs  Messianic  Hope. 

B  1 


2  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  Many  of  the  conversations 
which  he  held  with  his  disciples,  and  many  of  the 
controversies  which  he  carried  on  with  his  critics,  turn 
upon  points  of  current  religious  opinion.  Objections 
were  often  made  to  his  teaching,  by  the  religious 
leaders  of  the  period,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  received  views  and  current  practices  of  the 
prevailing  religion.  He  was  charged  with  violation 
of  the  sabbath,  with  failure  to  comply  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  law  respecting  lustrations  and  other 
ritual  observances.  By  his  enemies  he  was  thought 
lax  in  the  observance  of  the  ceremonial,  and  even  of 
the  moral,  requirements  of  the  Old  Testament.  "  Why 
do  thy  disciples  fast  not?"  was  asked.  "Where 
ought  men  to  worship  ?  "  "  Which  is  the  great  com- 
mandment of  the  law  ?  "  "  What  does  the  Mosaic  law 
require  in  this  or  that  application  of  it  ?  "  "  What  atti- 
tude should  one  take  up  toward  the  Roman  empire  ?  " 
The  legal  Two  general  tendencies  are  noticeable  in  Jewish 

tendency  of  thought,  which  we  may  roughly  designate  as  the  legal 
and  the  prophetic.  The  legal  tendency  is  illustrated 
in  the  emphasis  which  was  laid  upon  ritualistic  and 
ceremonial  observances,  in  the  rigor  with  which  the 
requirements  of  the  Mosaic  law  were  enforced,  and 
in  the  importance  which  was  attached  to  obedience  to 
them  in  order  to  salvation.  The  legalistic  spirit  gave 
rise  to  the  development  of  an  oral  law,  full  of  specific 
exactions  and  minute  refinements.  Of  these  regular 
tions  the  scribes  were  the  recognized  expounders.  In 
their  zeal  for  complete  obedience  to  the  law  they  had 
so  elaborated,  by  argument  and  inference,  its  supposed 
requirements  that  the  burden  of  compliance  was, 
indeed,  "  grievous  to  be  borne."  ^ 

1  On  Scribism,  see  Mathews,  History  of  N.  T.  Times,  161,  162 ; 
Schurer,  Jewish  People,  etc.,  Div.  II,  IV,  306-351 ;  Jewish 
Quarterly  Beview,  January,  1901,  161-217. 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  3 


The  prophetic  tendency  finds  its  classic  illustration  The  pro- 

-     ■      -  -  -  -  -    ":)hetic " 

lency. 


in  the  moral  and  political  teaching  of  the  canonical  Poetic  ten- 
prophets  whose  sermons  have  been  preserved  in  the 
Old  Testament.  With  them  the  principal  emphasis 
was  laid  upon  the  moral  and  spiritual  aspects  of  life. 
Kighteousness,  purity,  conformity  in  thought  and  pur- 
pose with  the  will  of  God,  were  the  burden  of  their 
message.  In  the  later  Jewish  period  the  legal  ten- 
dency quite  predominated  over  the  prophetic.  Reli- 
gion had  become  a  formal  affair,  a  matter  of  outward 
observance  and  ritual.  This  is  the  aspect  of  the 
Jewish  religion  which  meets  us  most  prominently  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  had  profoundly  affected  both 
the  theoretical  and  practical  view  which  the  Jewish 
people  took  of  God  and  of  the  relations  of  mankind 
to  him. 

Approaching  now  more  closely  to  our  more  imme-  God  as 
diate  subject,  we  find  that  Jewish  thought  regarded  father  only. 
God  as  sustaining  a  special  relation  to  Israel.  God 
was  indeed  a  father,  but  he  was  preeminently,  if  not 
exclusively,  the  father  of  Israel.  His  relation  to  the 
rest  of  mankind  was,  to  say  the  least,  vague  and  unde- 
fined. It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  conception  of 
God's  relation  to  Israel  had  a  certain  great  truth  and 
value.  It  tended"  to  bind  the  people  together  into  a 
close  and  compact  unity.  They  regarded  themselves 
as  a  people  of  God  in  an  altogether  exceptional  and 
peculiar  sense.  This  conviction  gave  them  an  in- 
tense realization  of  the  presence  of  God  in  their 
life  and  history,  and  of  his  providential  purpose  in 
their  development.  But  it  had  its  dangers.  It  tended 
also  to  a  certain  narrowness  in  the  conception  which 
was  cherished  of  God's  nature  and  character.  It 
tended  to  the  localization  of  God's  presence  and  to  the 
limitation  of  his  favor.  Narrow  and  selfish  views, 
conceptions  of  God  as  partial  to  the  Jewish  people,  as 


4  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

limiting  to  them  his  grace  and  revelation,  easily  devel- 
oped themselves  out  of  this  idea.  We  find  that  this 
danger  was  extensively  realized,  and  hence  in  the 
New  Testament  we  are  assured  that  there  is  no  re- 
spect of  persons  with  God,  —  a  statement  which  is 
intended  to  contradict  a  current  opinion  concerning 
him. 
Separation  Another  element  in  the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  God 
the  world,  is  what  we  may  call  the  belief  in  his  transcendence, 
his  remoteness  from  the  world.  This  was  a  result  of 
the  Jewish  conception  of  God's  holiness.  By  holiness 
was  meant  separateness  from  all  that  is  evil.  But  this 
idea  was  so  carried  out  practically  as  to  separate  God 
from  the  world  and  from  human  life  altogether. 
Hence  we  find,  in  the  late  Jewish  literature,  that  the 
gap  between  God  and  the  world  was  conceived  of  as 
bridged  over  by  a  series  of  intermediate  beings. 
Angels,  especially,  were  regarded  as  intermediaries  be- 
tween God  and  his  world.  It  was  common  to  repre- 
sent the  law  as  given  by  angels,  and  all  acts  of  God 
are  described  as  done  by  his  representatives  rather 
than  by  himself.  Sometimes  some  attribute  or  activ- 
ity of  God  was  personified,  and  was  represented  as 
performing  divine  functions.  Hence  we  read  of  the 
wisdom  or  of  the  word  of  God  as  his  agent  in  creation 
and  providence. 
Religious  This  conception  of  transcendence,  so  generally  held 

quences  of  ^7  *^®  Jews,  lent  itself  to  the  support  of  the  judicial 
these  con-  and  legal  aspect  of  religion.  God  had  prescribed  in 
cep  ions.  detail  all  that  men  were  to  do,  and  had  left  them  to 
carry  out  his  commandments.  He  dwelt  afar  off  in 
light  unapproachable;  his  worshipper  did  not  enter 
into  vital  communion  with  him,  but  performed  his 
round  of  tasks  and  ceremonies,  —  the  "  good  works  " 
of  the  law,  —  and  when  he  had  done  this,  was  regarded 
as  having  done  all  that  was  required.    It  is  easy  to 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  5 

see  how  these  ideas  tended  to  the  practical  exclusion 
of  the  doctrine  of  God's  grace,  and  of  his  living  pres- 
ence among  men.  All  was  formal,  legal,  prescribed. 
Every  act  of  obedience  had  its  definite  value,  and 
would  receive  its  appropriate  reward.  Under  the 
influence  of  these  conceptions  the  Jewish  religion,  in 
the  scribal  period,  lost  much  of  that  vitality  and  in- 
tensity of  moral  conviction  and  spiritual  power  which 
it  had  possessed  in  earlier  times.  It  became  a  tithing 
of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  to  the  neglect  of  the  great 
matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and  love.^ 

No  contrast  could  be  greater  than  that  between  this  Contrast 
legal  and  external  type  of  religion  and  the  teaching  jesus^^" 
and  life  of  Jesus.     For  him  religion  consisted  not  so  teaching 
much  in  a  prescribed  round  of  religious  duty,  as  in  a  Judaism, 
certain  disposition,  a  certain  way  of  feeling,  thinking, 
and  choosing.     Eeligion  was  for  him  an  affair  of  the 
heart,  of  the  inner  life.     The  conditions  of  acceptance 
with  God  which  he  prescribed  were  wholly  moral  and 
spiritual.     One  may  worship  God  with  equal  accept- 
ance in  any  place.     His  service  consists  not  so  much 
in  the  outer  forms  of  action  as  in  the  inward  temper 
and  character,  in  love  to  God  and  to  man. 

We  may  thus  see  how  Jesus  fulfilled  the  idea  of  Jesus'  fulfil- 
God  in  the  Jewish  religion,  as  he  fulfilled  all  its  ideas  gw  Testa^-^ 
which  had  elements  of  truth  in  them ;  how  he  pene-  ment  reli- 
trated  to  the  heart  of  the  religion  of  his  time,  reject-  ^^^' 
ing  its  mere  husk,  and  preserving  its  essential  kernel 
of  truth.     He  did  not  repudiate  the  laws,  customs, 
and  beliefs  of  his  age,  but  he  developed  into  fulness 
the  kernel  of  truth  in  them,  and  insisted  upon  their 
inner  meaning.     He  did  not  really  desecrate  the  sab- 
bath, but  he  dared  to  show  men  what  the  true  meaning 

^  1  Yet  see  the  earnest  defence  of  Rabbinical  theology  by 
Montefiore,  "Rabbinical  Judaism  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul," 
Jewish  Quarterly  Beview,  January,  1901,  lGl-217. 


6 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Old  and 
new  in  the 
teaching  of 


The  char- 
acteristic 
note  of 
Israel's 
piety. 


and  use  of  the  sabbath  were.  He  did  not  forbid  cere- 
monial washings,  the  making  of  distinctions  in  meats, 
and  the  like,  but  he  insisted  upon  the  greater  value 
and  importance  of  moral  purity.  He  took  part  in  the 
sacrificial  worship  of  his  time,  but  constantly  urged 
that  what  God  primarily  required  of  men  was  mercy 
rather  than  sacrifice.  He  summarized  his  teaching  in 
the  great  principle  of  love,  which  he  said  was  the  sum 
of  all  commandments,  the  essence  and  basis  of  all  true 
religious  obligation  and  duty. 

Thus  there  was  in  our  Lord's  teaching,  as  related  to 
the  current  beliefs  of  his  age,  something  old  and  some- 
thing new.  All  his  principles  were  rooted  in  the  Old 
Testament.  He  found  there  the  germ  of  all  that  he 
had  to  teach ;  but  he  found  the  essential  divine  truth 
there  contained  so  overlaid  with  tradition,  and  with 
extravagant  application  and  false  interpretation,  that 
he  was  compelled  to  reject  much  that  had  been  added 
to  the  principles  of  his  ancestral  religion.  These  prin- 
ciples he  then  brought  out  into  clear  expression,  and 
enforced  them  with  new  and  higher  motives,  and 
taught  them  in  forms  which  could  be  apprehended  by 
the  people. 

Let  us  next  review  the  current  Jewish  ideas  of 
Jesus'  age  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  people  of  Israel  have  been  described  as  an  in- 
carnate hope.  The  most  characteristic  peculiarity  of 
their  life  and  thought  was  the  fact  that  they  looked  for- 
ward with  longing  and  confidence  to  a  golden  age  in 
the  future.  A  good  and  glorious  time  was  coming. 
This  hope  was  expressed  in  a  great  variety  of  forms, 
but  all  of  these  illustrate  the  ideality  which  was  char- 
acteristic of  Jewish  thought.  Sometimes  this  ideal 
was  lofty  and  spiritual,  as  in  the  case  of  the  great 
prophets;  sometimes  narrow  and  worldly,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  of  Jesus'  age.    But 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  7 

a  great  interest  always  attaches  to  such  a  hopeful  view 
of  the  future  as  was  cherished  by  the  Jews.  It  illus- 
trates their  dissatisfaction  with  present  conditions, 
and  the  persistency  with  which  they  hoped  for  an  in- 
tervention of  God  in  their  history,  and  for  a  realiza- 
tion of  blessedness  in  the  coming  age. 

One  form  in  which  this  ideal  was  expressed  was  The  coming 
that  of  a  great  and  glorious  kingdom  of  blessedness  in  heavenly 
which  the  people  should  be  holy  and  happy  under  the 
dominion  and  favor  of  God.  This  ideal  sprang  from 
an  intense  sense  of  God's  authority  and  right  to  reign. 
It  was  founded  on  the  theocratic  idea,  and  on  the  con- 
ception that  human  society  should  be  organized  under 
the  divine  law  and  in  accord  with  the  divine  will.  It 
was  a  great  and  elevating  conception.  It  represented 
society  as  ennobled  and  purified,  as  a  state  in  which 
the  will  of  God  is  done  on  earth  as  in  heaven.  Accord- 
ing to  this  ideal,  a  pure  worship  and  service  was  to  be 
offered  to  God  continually.  His  people  were  to  be  all 
righteous ;  everything  was  to  be  consecrated  to  his  ser- 
vice, and  even  on  the  utensils  of  daily  life  and  labor 
was  to  be  inscribed  "  Holiness  unto  the  Lord."  ^ 

The  manner  in  which  this  ideal  was  cherished  was  Political 
determined  largely  by  the  existing  religious  and  politi-  t^^  ^^  *^*^ 
cal  conditions  of  the  nation.  When  Israel  became 
prosperous,  under  the  reign  of  her  great  kings,  David 
and  Solomon,  it  was  natural  that  her  ideal  for  the 
future  should  be  colored  by  the  life  and  experience  of 
that  period.  ^  Moreover,  in  Israel  Church  and  State 
were  one.  It  was  practically  impossible  to  conceive 
of  a  religious  ideal  apart  from  political  prosperity  and 
happiness.  Hence  we  find  that  the  future  golden  age 
is  often  portrayed  under  forms  of  thought  which  were 

1  On  the  source  and  nature  of  the  Messianic  expectation  in 
Judaism,  see  Mathews,  op.  cit.,  163-168;  Stanton,  Jewish  and 
and  especially  Schiirer  and  Weber,  op.  cit. 


8 


TEE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


derived  from  the  history  of  the  Davidic  monarchy. 
The  literature  of  late  Judaism  discloses  considerable 
variety  in  the  forms  of  the  Messianic  hope.  The  ethi- 
cal and  religious  characteristics  of  the  kingdom  were 
strongly  emphasized  by  some,  while  by  others  they 
were  remanded  to  the  background.  The  political  ele- 
ment, however,  was  always  fundamental,  even  when, 
as  is  commonly  the  case  in  the  extant  literature,  Mes- 
sianism  was  eschatological  and  apocalyptic.^ 

But  while  the  kingdom  was  thus  conceived  of  as 
earthly  in  its  location  and  character,  the  idea  of  its 
heavenly  origin  was  by  no  means  wholly  lost.  It  was 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  still  for  the  Jewish  mind, 
although  the  means  by  which  it  should  be  realized 
were  quite  earthly.  It  was  a  tendency  in  Israel  to 
conceive  of  the  favor  of  God  as  limited  to  the  chosen 
people,  which  narrowed  and  belittled  the  great  Old 
Testament  conception  of  the  coming  kingdom.  The 
prophetic  descriptions  of  the  prosperity  and  glory  of 
the  nation  in  the  Messianic  age  were  interpreted  with 
a  crude  literalism  which  robbed  them  of  their  loftier 
and  more  spiritual  suggestions.  It  was  the  Jewish 
particularism,  the  conviction  that  Israel  was  the  spe- 
cial favorite  of  heaven,  which  exercised  so  unfortunate 
an  influence  upon  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  It  was  because  the  Jews  had  little  idea 
of  God's  universal  fatherhood  and  boundless  love  to  all 
mankind  that  they  pictured  his  kingdom  as  a  renewed 
and  triumphant  Israel. 

Another  circumstance  which  tended  powerfully  to 
this  same  result  was  the  great  oppression  to  which 
the  nation  was  subjected  in  the  later  period  of  its  his- 
tory. Overwhelmed  in  a  series  of  conquests  by  the 
Oriental  and  Occidental  monarchies  of  the  time,  the 

1  The  best  instance  of  non-apocalyptic  Messianisra  is  un- 
doubtedly Ps.  of  Solomon,  17. 


JEWISH  BELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  9 

Jewish  people  turned  with  ardent  longing  and  hope 
to  the  promise  of  the  blessed  coming  age.  It  was 
natural  that,  in  these  circumstances,  the  hope  of  this 
kingdom  should  take  on  a  more  earthly  character  than 
ever  before.  Deliverance  from  the  conqueror  and  per- 
secutor was  the  ardent  desire  of  every  Jewish  heart. 
The  nation  cried  out  in  bitter  anguish  under  the  heavy 
yoke  of  the  oppressor  which  weighed  down  upon  it. 
It  was  during  this  period  that  apocalyptic  literature 
took  its  rise, — that  species  of  prophecy  which  was 
produced  by  the  combination  of  suffering  and  of  hope 
under  the  Greek  and  Eoman  dominations.  In  this 
later  period  of  Jewish  history,  which  continued  down 
into  the  New  Testament  time,  the  dominant  note  of 
Israel's  hope  for  the  future  was  the  desire  to  throw  off 
the  Eoman  yoke,  and  to  see  the  nation  recover  once 
more  its  freedom,  prosperity,  and  power.  This  result 
was  to  be  realized  by  Israel  becoming  the  governing 
power  over  other  nations,  though  the  accomplishment 
of  this  through  a  king  in  Israel  was  not  always  in- 
sisted on.  It  is  not  strange  that,  under  these  condi- 
tions, the  minds  of  the  people  should  have  been  haunted 
by  dreams  of  national  glory,  and  that  the  flame  of 
hatred  against  the  ruling  worldly  powers  should  have 
burst  forth  with  unexampled  fury. 

Throughout  the  New  Testament  we  find  traces  of  Thekin^- 
the  ideas  of  the  kingdom  to  which  we  have  been  refer-  ^Sd  earthly, 
ring.  "  Wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel?"  men  said;  that  is,  establish  the  nation  in 
strength  and  prosperity  by  overthrowing  the  power  of 
its  enemies.  Even  Christ's  own  disciples  entertained 
this  conception  of  his  kingdom.  Two  of  them  would 
sit,  one  on  his  right  hand  and  the  other  on  his  left,  in 
his  kingdom.  It  was  believed  by  those  who  followed 
him  that  his  kingdom  would  come  with  observation,  — 


10  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

that  is,  with  some  sudden  and  powerful  forth-putting 
of  divine  energy.^ 
Correspond-  The  popular  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  corre- 
the  Messiah,  sponded  with  the  current  conception  of  the  kingdom 
of  God.  The  Messiah  was  to  usher  in  this  reign  of 
prosperity  and  peace.  In  proportion  as  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  conceived  of  in  a  worldly  and  political 
way,  in  that  proportion  did  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah 
take  on  a  similar  character.  If  the  kingdom  was  to  be 
a  worldly  empire,  the  Messiah  must  be  a  worldly  ruler 
or  prince.  Hence  we  find  that  in  the  later  Jewish 
period  the  person  and  work  of  the  Messiah  were  chiefly 
regarded  in  this  light.  It  was  believed  that  he  would 
lead  a  popular  uprising  against  the  dominant  Koman 
power,  throw  off  the  hated  yoke  of  political  oppression, 
and  reconstitute  the  nation  in  prosperity  and  peace.  Un- 
der his  sway  their  sorrows  and  sufferings  should  cease,  a 
blessed  reign  of  happiness  should  be  realized,  and  the 
bright  hopes  of  Israel  concerning  the  future  golden  age 
find  their  perfect  fulfilment.  The  Messianism  of  later 
Judaism  was  strongly  eschatological  and  supernatural 
in  tone.  The  "coming  age"  was  to  be  a  new  and  distinct 
epoch,  intermediate  between  the  present  evil  age  and 
the  final  consummation.  As  the  vision  of  Israel's  glory 
and  triumph  in  the  present  world-period  grew  dim  and 
uncertain,  religious  thought  turned  to  a  new  aeon  which 
God  should  introduce  by  direct  supernatural  power 
when  Messiah  should  reign  king  of  nations. 
Why  We  accordingly  find  that  in  the  time  of  Jesus  the 

dominant  conception  of  the  Messiah  was  that  he  should 
be  a  ruler  and  king.  Visions  of  power  and  glory  filled 
the  minds  of  the  people  of  that  time.  They  were 
no  longer  able  to  discern  the  import  of  .the  higher 
prophetic   descriptions   of    Messiah's   mission.      The 

1  For  a  comparison  of  Jesus'  idea  of  the  kingdom  with  that 
of  the  popular  expectation,  see  Ch.  IV. 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  11 

representations  of  the  suffering  servant  of  Jehovah 
in  Isaiah  were  either  ignored  or  ingeniously  explained 
away.  The  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  did  not  believe  in  a 
suffering  and  dying  Messiah.  It  was  contrary  to  their 
whole  conception  of  Messiah's  person  and  function 
that  he  should  suffer  defeat,  and  ultimately  an  igno- 
minious death.  How  could  he  thus  suffer,  when  he 
was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  victorious  champion  of 
his  people  ?  How  could  he  fulfil  the  promise  of  deliv- 
erance if  he  submitted  himself  to  death? 

The  conviction  that  the  Messiah  w^ould  triumph  and  Effect  of 
reign,  that  he  would  defeat  Israel's  enemies  and  lead  sufferings 
the  nation  forth  to  a  glorious  victory,  was  greatly  in-  o^  the  Mes- 
tensified  during  the  years  immediately  preceding  the 
appearance  of  Christ.  The  oppressions  and  sufferings 
which  the  nation  experienced  under  the  Roman  domi- 
nation, which  tended  so  powerfully  to  the  seculariza- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  tended  with  equal 
power  to  a  worldly  and  political  conception  of  the  Mes- 
siah. So  completely  were  the  thoughts  of  the  Jewish 
people  taken  up  with  their  hardships  and  sorrows,  that 
they  could  think  of  little  else  than  deliverance  from 
the  hated  power  of  the  Romans.  It  was  not  strange 
that  their  inherited  view,  that  a  good  and  happy  time 
was  coming,  should  take  the  form  of  a  belief  that  the 
promised  Messiah  would  usher  in  this  glorious  era. 
It  was  quite  natural  that  the  future  blessedness  should 
include  as  its  most  prominent  element  that  deliverance 
from  oppression  of  which  they  were  so  constantly  com- 
pelled to  think.  When  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  are  considered,  it  becomes  quite  feasible  to  explain 
the  way  in  which  the  Messianic  idea  in  Judaism  had 
degenerated  from  the  lofty  spiritual  conception  of  the 
old  prophets  to  the  political  view  of  his  person  and 
work  current  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 

We  find  ample  illustration  in  the  New  Testament 


12 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Contrast  of 
popular 
view  and 
that  of 
Jesus. 


of  this  popular  Messianic  idea  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking.  The  primary  significance  of  Christ's  temp- 
tation was  that  he  was  called  upon  to  decide  whether 
he  would  follow  the  popular  conception  of  Messiah's 
work,  or,  deserting  this,  choose  out  another  and  a 
higher  course  of  action.  One  element  in  the  popular 
demand  for  the  Messiah's  work  was  that  he  should  do 
great  and  startling  miracles,  that  he  should  defeat  his 
enemies  by  overwhelming  exhibitions  of  divine  power 
and  authority.  His  temptation  in  the  wilderness  is 
a  pictorial  representation  of  this  idea.  Let  Messiah, 
if  he  be  truly  such,  cast  himself  down  from  the  pin- 
nacle of  the  temple ;  let  him  turn  the  stones  of  the 
desert  into  bread;  let  him  compel  the  acceptance  of 
his  authority  and  mission  by  such  impressive  exhibi- 
tions of  divine  miraculous  power  that  none  could  re- 
fuse to  confess  him  to  be  the  chosen  leader  of  God's 
people.  It  may  be  that  John  the  Baptist  cherished  a 
view  of  Messiah's  work  that  was  somewhat  tinged  with 
this  conception.  The  Messiah  was  to  come  with  a  win- 
nowing fan  of  divine  judgment  to  separate  the  wheat 
from  the  chaff.  He  was  to  come  with  a  signal  display 
of  his  supreme  majesty  and  power.  Certain  it  is 
that  many  of  Jesus'  disciples  shared  to  a  great  extent 
iii  this  theory  of  Messiah's  work.  They  hoped  for 
positions  of  authority  and  power  in  his  world-empire. 
They  dreamed  of  a  restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel. 
The  course  which  Jesus  actually  pursued  in  propagat- 
ing his  truth  and  in  founding  his  kingdom  involved 
a  profound  disappointment  to  many  of  his  followers. 
How  bewildered  they  were  as  he  continued  to  do  his 
work  without  fulfilling  any  of  those  conditions  which 
they  regarded  as  essential  to  the  setting  up  of  his  king- 
dom !  He  founded  no  party ;  he  led  no  popular  up- 
rising; he  authorized  no  use  of  the  sword ;  he  refrained 
from  all  participation  in  political  affairs.     They  could 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  13 

not  understand  that  his  kingdom  was  in  the  realm  of 
the  spirit,  and  that  his  object  was  to  make  himself 
king  in  the  sphere  of  men's  inner  life.  Between  the 
popular  idea  of  Messiah's  mission  and  that  which  Jesus 
taught  and  realized  there  was  a  great  gulf,  which  the 
minds  of  his  disciples  were  not  able  to  bridge.  It  was 
only  gradually,  under  the  guidance  and  illumination  of 
the  Spirit,  that  they  were  able  to  enter  into  the  mean- 
ing of  his  spiritual  view  of  his  kingdom  and  work. 

But,  defective  as  was  the  popular  Jewish  view  of  5.^^/?®"*+?/ 
Messiah's  mission,  far  as  it  fell  short  of  the  higher  worldly 
prophetic  ideal  on  the  subject,  there  was  still  a  kernel  JieJiah's 
of  truth  preserved  within  it.  That  truth  was  that  the  work, 
gospel  of  Christ  is  a  gospel  for  this  world  and  for  the 
present  life  of  man.  Its  spirituality  does  not  mean 
that  it  has  no  application  to  the  duties,  relationships, 
and  experiences  of  this  present  life.  It  is  a  gospel  of 
social  well-being.  It  is  a  gospel  even  of  political  pros- 
perity and  progress,  but  it  is  this  because  it  is,  first  of 
all,  the  gospel  of  a  Godlike  life.  It  is  the  gospel  of 
man's  outer  life  because  it  is  primarily  the  gospel  of  his 
inner  life.  Yet  these  two  aspects  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  were  not  apprehended  in  this  relation  by  many 
to  whom  he  spoke ;  it  was  difficult  for  them  to  place 
the  spiritual  first,  and  to  see  that  the  outward  and 
temporary  was  of  secondary  interest  and  concern.  It 
was  one  of  the  constant  efforts  of  Jesus  to  enable  men 
to  see  the  meaning  and  application  of  his  work  in  its 
true  proportix)ns,  to  enable  men  to  place  that  first 
which  is  first,  and  thus  to  seek  the  realization  of  their 
social  and  political  well-being  through  their  sympathy 
and  harmony  with  the  holy  will  and  purpose  of  God. 

Nor  would  it  be  correct  to  say  that  Jesus  himself  jesus'  con- 
did  not   have  his   doctrine  of  Messiah's  victory  and  J^P^j^^J,^^ 
majesty.     He  used  language  as  strong  as  that  of  any  glory  and 
of  the  prophets  concerning  the  world-dominion  which  P^^®"^- 


14 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


awaited  him.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the 
Father  had  committed  all  things,  all  authority,  all 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  to  him.  But  he  was 
to  come  to  this  victory,  not  by  methods  of  worldly 
ambition,  but  by  the  diviner  way  of  humility,  sacri- 
fice, and  service.  There  is  nothing  more  character- 
istic in  the  consciousness  and  work  of  Jesus  than 
the  way  in  which  he  combined  the  apparently  oppo- 
site conceptions  of  humiliation  and  abasement  and 
those  of  exaltation  and  majesty.  We  shall  see  that 
his  favorite  self-designation,  "  the  Son  of  man,"  was 
probably  adopted  by  him  because  it  lent  itself  to  the 
expression  of  this  combination  of  ideas.  In  some  of 
its  uses  "  son  of  man "  in  the  Old  Testament  w^as 
a  designation  of  weakness  and  humility ;  in  others,  a 
designation  of  strength  and  majesty.  Now  Jesus 
took  up  into  himself  both  of  these  characters,  and 
united  them  in  a  perfect  combination.  He  hum- 
bled himself  and  was  thereby  exalted.  The  way  to 
his  throne  was  the  way  of  the  cross.  He  gave  him- 
self up  to  the  life  of  perfect  sacrifice  and  service  that 
he  might  thereby  be  glorified  through  self-denying 
love.  He  was  lifted  up  on  the  shameful  cross,  but  in 
thus  being  lifted  up,  was  able  to  draw  all  men  unto 
himself. 

Thus  we  see  how  Jesus  fulfils  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  popular  Jewish  Messianic  idea.  He  con- 
serves in  his  teaching  and  work  the  essential  spiritual 
truths  contained  in  that  idea,  but  he  strips  it  of  all 
that  is  gross  and  earthly.  He  elevates  and  dignifies 
the  hope  of  Israel  by  showing  that  a  far  higher  pur- 
pose of  God  is  to  be  realized  in  his  work  than  that  of 
which  the  Jewish  people  had  ever  dreamed. 

The  popular  Jewish  conception  of  salvation  agrees 
with  the  idea  of  God  and  his  kingdom  which  I  have 
outlined.     -Two    points  are  to  be  especially  noted. 


JEWISH  BELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  15 

One  is  the  view  taken  of  atonement;  the  other,  the 
doctrine  of  righteousness.  The  notion  of  reparation 
underlies  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  Sin  is  conceived 
as  a  debt,  or  as  failure  to  render  what  is  due  to  God. 
Something  must  therefore  be  rendered  to  him  in  place 
of  the  obedience  which  is  his  due.  Various  acts  and 
experiences  might  serve  this  purpose.  Eepentance, 
suffering,  almsgiving,  and  especially  death,  were 
thought  to  have  atoning  significance.  These  acts  pro- 
cured the  favor  of  God  for  the  sinner.  They  balanced 
his  account,  as  it  were,  in  the  estimation  of  the  right- 
eous Judge.  One  of  the  commonest  atonements  for 
sin  was  the  vicarious  suffering  of  the  righteous  on 
behalf  of  the  guilty.  The  great  saints  of  Israel's 
history,  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  were  regarded 
as  having  suffered  hardships  and  persecutions  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  came  after.  They  had  accumu- 
lated for  their  descendants,  by  their  vicarious  expe- 
riences, a  treasury  of  merits,  which  could  be  drawn 
upon  by  the  guilty  people  of  Israel  in  time  of  need. 
In  like  manner  parents  might  expiate  the  sins  of  their 
children.  Thus  it  was  the  duty  of  every  man  to  do 
what  he  could  to  cancel  the  guilt  of  others,  as  others 
had  done  a  like  service  for  him. 

Among  the  good  works  which  were  thought  to  have  Atoning 
an  atoning  value  almsgiving  held  an  especially  high  goJ^^^^^^g 
place.  In  the  Jewish  view  this  was  a  form  of  self- 
denial  which  was  particularly  pleasing  to  God.  We 
meet  traces  of  this  idea  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
passages  which  lay  special  stress  upon  the  selling  of 
one's  goods,  and  giving  to  the  poor.  It  may  be  due 
to  the  influence  of  this  idea  that  the  word  "alms" 
supplanted  the  word  "  righteousness  "  in  the  passage : 
"  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  righteousness  before 
men,  to  be  seen  of  them."  ^ 

1  Matt.  6  : 1. 


16 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  point  of  chief  importance,  in  connection  with 
these  satisfactions  for  sin,  is  that  they  could  not  beget 
in  the  pious  soul  the  certainty  of  acceptance  with  God. 
One  could  not  be  sure  that  he  had  performed  abso- 
lutely every  duty,  that  the  trials  and  hardships  which 
he  had  experienced  were  sufficient.  The  result  was 
that  the  secure  sense  of  God's  favor  and  forgiveness 
was  wanting  among  the  more  thoughtful  and  serious 
Jews  of  the  period  under  review.  So  long  as  it  de- 
pended upon  what  man  could  do  and  experience 
whether  he  was  saved  or  not,  no  certitude  respecting 
salvation  was  attainable.  That  which  was  lacking  in 
this  view  of  salvation  was  the  element  of  divine 
grace,  the  conviction  of  the  undeserved  favor  and  un- 
failing love  of  God  of  whose  benefits  one  may  be 
absolutely  sure  whenever  he  is  willing  to  accept  them. 

The  prevailing  conception  of  righteousness,  that  is, 
of  acceptance  with  God,  which  went  along  with  this 
doctrine  of  salvation  was  that  of  a  formal  legal  ac- 
quittal. Eighteousness  consisted  in  the  doing  of  the 
commandments,  and  these  were  thought  to  lay  main 
stress  upon  expiations  and  ritual  requirements.  Hence 
the  externalism  to  which  the  New  Testament  so  fre- 
quently refers.  Men  easily  thought  themselves  right- 
eous when  their  conceptions  of  righteousness  were  low 
and  inadequate. 

It  should  not  be  supposed,  however,  from  what 
has  been  said,  that  all  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time 
took  only  superficial  views  of  God's  requirements, 
and  indulged  a  complaisant  self-satisfaction  in  the 
belief  that  they  had  fulfilled  them.  Some  were  led, 
by  their  efforts  to  satisfy  the  divine  demands  as  they 
conceived  them,  not  to  self-righteousness,  but  to  de- 
spair. We  find  a  striking  example  of  this  result  in 
the  pre-Christian  experience  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  In 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  he  depicts  a  conflict 


JEWISH  RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS  17 

between  the  power  of  sin  and  the  higher  impulse  of 
the  reason  or  the  conscience.  This  conflict  he  de- 
scribes in  the  first  person,  showing  that  it  is  a  reflec- 
tion of  his  own  experience  before  he  found  pardon  and 
peace  through  Christ.  He  says  that  when  the  law 
became  known  to  him  in  its  high  moral  requirements, 
it  disclosed  him  to  himself  in  the  real  depths  of  his 
sinfulness  and  in  his  utter  powerlessness  to  do  what 
the  law  required.  Earlier  in  life  he  had  dwelt  in 
fancied  security,  supposing  himself,  no  doubt,  as 
others  did,  to  have  kept  God's  commandments,  and 
to  be  secure  in  his  favor.  But  when  he  gained  a 
deeper  insight  into  the  real  height  and  depth  of  the 
law's  demands,  he  saw  how  impossible  it  was  for  him, 
in  his  own  unaided  strength,  to  fulfil  them.  The  result 
was  entire  uncertainty  of  acceptance  with  God,  a 
brooding  despair  of  his  favor.  This  experience  was 
the  preparation,  even  if  negative  and  indirect,  for  his 
reception  of  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ. 
Thus  we  observe  how  the  most  opposite  consequences 
might  flow  from  the  popular  views  of  righteousness 
and  salvation,  according  to  the  temper  of  the  person 
entertaining  them.  The  religious  consciousness  of 
Judaism  may  thus  be  said  to  have  oscillated  between 
self-righteousness  and  despair.  Those  who  fancied 
that  they  had  done  all  were  self-confident ;  those  who 
were  in  doubt  were  the  prey  of  despair. 

Practically  the  popular  Jewish  doctrine  was  that  of  Salvation 
salvation  by  merit.  Every  good  deed  was  regarded  as  ^^  merit, 
entitled  to  its  appropriate  reward.  The  sum  of  a 
man's  good  deeds,  or  of  his  meritorious  experiences, 
constituted  his  claim  upon  the  favor  of  heaven. 
"What  good  thing  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life  ?  "  expresses  the  dominant  note  of  this  piety.  To 
this  popular  view  the  Epistles  of  Paul  frequently 
refer.    He  well  knew,  both  from  observation  and  from 


18 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


experience,  its  practical  influence  and  effect.     He  had 

once  sought  peace  in  accordance  with  its  principles, 

but  in  vain. 

Contrast  No  Contrast  could  be  greater  than  that  between 

JuSfsm  and  J^sus'  teaching  concerning  religion  and  this  Pharisaic 

Christian-      theory.     He  taught  that  trust  is  what  God  requires, 

that  the  humble  and  teachable  disposition  is  what  is 

most  pleasing  to  him.     Men  do  not  climb  up  into 

God's  favor  by  works  of  righteousness  or  ceremonial 

performances  w^hich  they  do,  but  they  receive  his 

salvation  as  a  gift  of  pure  grace.     The  watchwords  of 

the  late  Jewish  theology  were  works  and  debt ;  those 

of  Christianity  were  grace  and  faith. 


ity, 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   RECORDS    OF   JESUS'    WORDS    AND    DEEDS  ^ 

Unlike  most  great  teachers,  Jesus  did  not  commit  The  oral 
his  teaching  to  writing.  It  was  evidently  no  part  of  jesus^  ^ 
his  purpose  to  give  his  instruction  a  stereotyped  form,  teaching. 
His  profoundest  and  most  striking  sayings  were  often 
uttered  upon  a  chance  meeting  with  some  stranger; 
his  inimitable  parables  were  spoken  to  little  groups  at 
the  wayside  or  by  the  lake  shore ;  while  his  greatest 
works  were  often  accompanied  by  an  injunction  of 
silence  upon  those  who  had  witnessed  them.^  Did 
any  other  public  teacher  ever  adopt  so  strange  a 
course  ?  Was  there  ever  such  carelessness  of  results, 
such  apparent  waste  of  effort  ?  If  his  purpose  had 
been  to  give  formal  rules  for  the  conduct  of  life  or 
to  propound  doctrines  and  explanations  on  the  per- 
plexing problems  of  human  speculation  and  research, 
his  method  must  be  pronounced  a  very  faulty  and  in- 

1  General  References  :  Articles,  "Gospels,"  in  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary  (new  edition),  by  Sanday,  and  in  Hastings'  Diction- 
ary of  the  Bible,  by  Stanton  (containing  full  bibliographies), 
and  by  Abbott  and  Schmiedel  in  Cheyne-Black,  Ency.  Bib.  ; 
the  relevant  sections  of  the  Introductions  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  Weiss,  Salmon,  Bacon,  Holtzmann,  and  Julicher 
(the  last  two  untranslated)  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu  (un- 
translated) ;  Cone,  Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Chris- 
tianity; Wright,  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels ;  Woods, 
*'The  Origin  and  Mutual  Relation  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels"  (in 
Studia  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica,  Vol.  II)  ;  Wernle,  Die  syn- 
optische  Frage. 

2Matt.9:30;  12:16;  Mk.  6:43;  7:36;  Lk.  5:14;  8:56. 
19 


20 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Why  did  not 
Jesus 

commit  his 
teaching  to 
writing  ? 


No  need  of 
written 
Gospels 
during  the 
first  years 
of  the 
Church. 


adequate  one.  How  could  sayings  be  accurately  pre- 
served, how  could  doctrines  be  kept  free  from  error, 
which  were  thus  thrown  out  in  casual  conversations, 
with  no  apparent  care  for  their  precise  form  and  no 
provision  for  their  accurate  preservation  ? 

How  evident  it  is  that  the  purpose  of  Jesus  must 
have  been  something  quite  different  from  a  formal 
delivery  of  doctrines  or  rules.  It  was  the  inspiration 
and  quickening  of  the  lives  of  men  at  which  he  was 
aiming.  He  was  bent  upon  lodging  living  truths  in 
the  heart  of  humanity,  and  he  knew  that  he  could 
best  do  this,  not  by  the  methods  of  the  scribe  and  the 
school,  but  by  that  personal,  first-hand  contact  with 
men,  by  that  vital  touch  of  mind  and  heart,  through 
which  alone  one  personality  can  communicate  its  treas- 
ures to  another.  Hence  Jesus  chose  the  vital,  per- 
sonal method  of  teaching.  He  sent  forth  his  message 
tipped  and  winged  with  the  fire  of  living  conviction 
and  enthusiasm,  with  no  fear  that  it  would  fail  of 
either  power  or  preservation.  His  confidence  in  the 
truth  he  spoke  was  absolute.  He  knew  that  it  would 
live  and  thrive  and  bear  fruit  in  the  life  of  the  world. 
It  needed  no  outward  support,  no  factitious  recom- 
mendations, no  authoritative  enforcement,  no  parade 
of  logic  or  learning.  It  was  the  truth  of  God  —  the 
truth  of  reason  —  the  truth  of  man's  nature.  Jesus 
dared  to  sow  it  broadcast  upon  the  soil  of  human  life, 
trusting  in  its  inherent  power  for  its  preservation,  and 
in  its  divine  adaptation  to  the  nature  of  man  for  its 
success. 

We  do  not  know  how  long  a  time  passed  before  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  began  to  write  down  accounts  of 
his  words  and  deeds  —  probably  two  or  three  decades,  at 
least.  The  Apostle  Paul,  whose  principal  epistles  fall 
within  the  period  from  twenty  to  thirty-five  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  occasionally  quotes  words  of 


BECOBDS  OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     21 

the  Lord,  but  he  does  not  speak  as  if  they  were  taken 
from  authoritative  or  generally  recognized  books.  He 
seems,  rather,  to  be  drawing  upon  a  fund  of  current 
apostolic  tradition.  During  the  early  years  of  the 
apostolic  age  the  disciples  would  have  no  occasion  to 
write  narratives  of  the  Lord's  teaching  and  work. 
The  Master  himself  was  photographed  upon  every 
mind  and  heart;  his  words  and  deeds  lived  in  the 
memory  of  his  followers,  and  the  knowledge  of  them 
was  preserved  and  perpetuated  by  frequent  repetition 
in  Christian  teaching.  But  as  the  first  generation  of 
believers  began  to  die  out,  and  as  Christianity  spread 
beyond  its  original  home  in  Palestine,  the  need  of 
written  memoranda  would  begin  to  make  itself  felt. 
Probably  within  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  after 
Jesus'  departure  from  earth,  men  began  to  make  frag- 
mentary records  of  his  words  and  deeds,  partly  as 
means  of  preserving  the  memory  of  them,  and  partly 
as  means  of  instructing  new  converts  who  did  not 
have  access  to  the  testimonies  of  the  eye  and  ear 
witnesses. 

The  Evangelist  Luke  has  given  us  in  his  Preface  ^  a  "^.^^  ^egin- 
most  instructive  account  of  the  origin  and  motive  of  evangelical 
his  own  Gospel  and,  incidentally,  of  the  still  earlier  li^^e^^ature. 
narratives  of  the  Lord's  life.     From  this  passage  we 
learn  :    (1)  that  many  records  of  Jesus'  words  and 
deeds  had  been  made  before  Luke  composed  his  own; 
(2)  that  these  narratives  were  based  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  the  eye  and  ear  witnesses ;    (3)  that  Luke, 
after  collating  ampler  materials  than  had  been  used 
before,  proposed  to  present  a  fuller  and  more  adequate 
account  of  Jesus'  ministry  than  had  yet  appeared ;  and 
(4)  that  the  aim  of  his  work  was  the  confirmation  of 
his   patron,  Theophilus,  and   of   his   readers,  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord's  words  and  deeds.    The  au- 
1  Lk.  1 : 1-4. 


22 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  patris- 
tic testi- 
mony 
concerning 
Mark. 


thor  does  not  claim  a  first-hand  acquaintance  with  the 
life  of  Christ ;  on  the  contrary  he  ranks  himself  among 
the  many  writers  who  had  already  written  in  depend- 
ence upon  the  tradition  which  the  associates  of  Jesus 
had  delivered  to  them.  Luke  grounds  his  claim  to 
offer  a  more  satisfactory  Gospel  than  had  thus  far 
appeared,  upon  the  carefulness  and  scope  of  his  inves- 
tigations. He  does  not  say  that  he  proposed  to  incor- 
porate into  his  Gospel  materials  derived  from  the 
narratives  of  his  predecessors,  but  since  his  work  and 
theirs  rest,  in  great  part,  upon  a  common  tradition,  it 
is  reasonable  to  think  that  he  intended  to  avail  him- 
self of  the  labors  of  others  whenever  they  would  serve 
his  purpose.  In  this  Preface,  then,  we  see  reflected 
the  motive  and  method  of  the  beginnings  of  our  evan- 
gelical literature. 

Can  any  of  the  earlier  Gospels  to  which  Luke  refers 
be  identified?  At  this  point  we  must  consult  the 
most  ancient  traditions  of  the  Church.  Papias,^  bishop 
of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  whom  Irenseus^  describes 
as  a  hearer  of  the  Apostle  John,  has  left  us  this  testi- 
mony concerning  the  Gospel  of  Mark:  "He  was  the 
interpreter  of  Peter,  and  wrote  down  with  accuracy, 
but  not  in  chronological  order,  the  events  of  Jesus' 
life ;  this  he  did  from  information  given  him  by  Peter, 
for  he  was  not  himself  an  eye-witness."  ^  Later,  Irenaeus 
bears  a  similar  testimony,  telling  us  that  Mark,  a  dis- 
ciple and  interpreter  of  Peter,  preserved  and  handed 
down  in  a  book  the  substance  of  Peter's  preaching.* 


1  Flourished  about  140-160  a.d. 

2  Flourished  about  170-200  a.d. 

«  Eusebius,  Church  History,  III,  39. 

*  Against  Heresies,  III,  i,  7.  With  this  tradition  agrees  well 
the  fact  that  in  the  second  Gospel  the  incidents  of  Peter's  life 
are  narrated  with  exceptional  fulness.  Mk.  1  :  30  iff. ;  8  :  29  ff.  ; 
10:28ff.  :  ll:21ff.  :  14:37ff.  ;  16:7. 


RECORDS  OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     23 

When,  now,  we  compare  the  second  and  third  Gospels,  The 
we  find  that  the  latter  is,  in  the  main,  constructed  upon  relations  of 
the  framework  of  the  former.  If  certain  extended  ^^^^^^^ 
passages  which  are  not  common  to  Mark  and  Luke  be 
removed,^  it  will  be  apparent  that  we  have  remaining 
essentially  the  same  matter  and  in  substantially  the 
same  order,  in  the  two  Gospels.  A  critical  comparison 
of  these  two  narratives  makes  this  priority  of  Mark's 
account  highly  probable.  A  strong  presumption  thus 
arises  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  one  of  the  many  earlier 
narratives  to  which  Luke  refers  in  his  Prologue.  How 
would  this  supposition  agree  with  what  Luke  says  of 
those  narratives  ?  He  says  that  they  were  composed 
by  those  who  were  not  themselves  personal  disciples 
of  Jesus,  but  in  accordance  with  information  delivered 
to  them  by  those  who  were  such.  He  implies  that 
they  were  brief  narratives  and  that  he  proposed  to 
supplement  them  by  additional  materials.  All  this 
corresponds  exactly  with  the  patristic  testimony  con- 
cerning Mark  and  with  the  relation  of  his  Gospel  to 
that  of  Luke  which  a  critical  comparison  discloses. 
Mark,  who  was  not  a  hearer  of  Jesus,  incorporated  in 
his  brief  narrative  the  accounts  of  Jesus'  words  and 
deeds  which  he  was  accustomed  to  hear  from  the 
apostle  Peter.  Mark's  Gospel,  then,  was  written  be- 
fore Luke's,  and  was,  in  all  probability,  one  of  its 
principal  sources. 

Concerning  the  first  Gospel  we  have  also  an  impor-  The  earliest 
tant  statement  from   Papias.     He  says,   "Matthew  *^^^^^;^?,g 
composed  the  oracles  (logia)  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  Matthew, 
and  each  one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  ^    The 
testimony  of  Irenseus  is  to  the  same  effect.^    Is  this 
description  applicable  to  our  first  Gospel  ?    If  so,  we 

1  E.g.  chs.  1,2;  6  :  20-8  : 3  ;  9  :  51-18  :  14. 

2  Eusebius,  Church  History,  III,  39. 
■  Against  Heresies^  III,  i,  1. 


i  UWiV     iS?TY^ 


24 


THE    TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Was  the 
first  Gospel 
written  in 
Hebrew? 


The  relation 
of  the  Logia 
to  our  first 
Gospel. 


must  suppose  that  our  Matthew  is  a  Greek  translation 
of  a  Hebrew  original.  But  the  difficulties  of  this  sup- 
position are  very  great.  Our  first  Gospel  has  none  of 
the  marks  of  a  translation  from  Hebrew  (or  Aramaic). 
It  is  written  in  a  smooth,  clear,  and  uniform  Greek 
style.  There  are  numerous  plays  on  Greek  words  ^ 
and  verbal  agreements  with  the  Septuagint,  as  against 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  make 
the  supposition  in  question  extremely  unnatural,  if  not 
impossible.  Moreover,  a  critical  comparison  of  our 
first  Gospel  with  the  other  two  Synoptics  makes  the 
supposition  of  its  composition  by  an  eye-witness  very 
difficult.  We  find  that  aside  from  the  introductory 
chapters  (1,  2)  and  the  groups  of  sayings,  such  as  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (5-7),  the  instruction  to  the 
twelve  (10),  and  the  chapter  of  parables  (13),  the  first 
Gospel,  like  the  third,  is  built  upon  Mark.  Even  less 
than  Luke  does  Matthew  exhibit  the  characteristics 
of  a  primary  and  independent  work.  We  are  thus 
forced  to  suppose  that  the  patristic  testimonies  which 
have  been  cited  are  applicable  only  to  an  earlier  form 
of  our  first  Gospel,  that  is,  to  a  late  Hebrew  (Aramaic) 
writing  of  the  Apostle  Matthew  which  became  one 
of  the  principal  sources  of  our  first  Gospel  and  from 
which  it  derived  the  name  which  it  bears  —  the  Gospel 
axjcording  to  Matthew. 

With  this  conclusion  the  phenomena  of  the  Gospel 
strikingly  agree.  The  Matthaic  Oracles,  or  Logia,  was 
evidently  composed  mainly  of  discourses  and  sayings. 
The  first  Gospel  is  distinguished  by  its  elaborate  col- 
lections of  didactic  matter.  These  materials  are 
massed  together  according  to  the  subjects  on  which 
they  bear  and  with  little  reference  to  chronological 
arrangement.  In  illustration  one  has  only  to  observe 
that  the  sayings  which  compose  the  Sermon  on  the 

1  E.g.  Matt.  24 :  30. 


RECORDS  OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     25 

Mount  in  Matthew  are  distributed  throughout  several 
chapters,  in  various  connections,  in  Luke.  Some  of 
these  sayings  are  placed  in  such  definite  and  appro- 
priate historical  connections  by  Luke  that  one  cannot 
hesitate  to  give  the  preference  to  his  chronology. 
Take,  for  example,  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Matthew 
places  it  iii  connection  with  general  instructions  on 
the  nature  of  prayer  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.* 
Luke  assigns  it  to  quite  a  different  time  when,  in 
answer  to  the  request  of  the  disciples  that  the  Master 
would  teach  them  to  pray,  he  gave  them  this  form  of 
prayer.^  The  peculiarity  of  the  first  Gospel,  then,  as 
presenting  elaborate  groups  of  sayings,  agrees  perfectly 
with  the  supposition  that  one  of  its  principal  sources 
was  a  writing  which  was  composed  mainly  of  the 
words  of  Jesus. 

The  foregoing  considerations  yield  us  the  elements  The  two- 
of  the  two-source   theory  of  the   Synoptic  Gospels.  JJeoryof 
Both  the  first  and  the  third  Gospels  are  constructed  the  Synop- 
mainly  from  the  materials  of  Mark  and  of  the  Mat-    ^^^' 
thaic  Logia.     In  the  use  of  this  common  matter  each 
evangelist  proceeded  in  a  way  of  his  own,  arranging, 
combining,  and  adjusting  the  discourses  and  narratives 
of  his  sources  according  to  his  own  special  purpose. 
Whether  Mark  knew  and  used  the  Logia,  in  addition 
to  the  preaching  of  Peter,  is  a  disputed  question.    The 
supposition  is  not  necessary  to  the  explanation  of  the 
facts.     It  is  also  unlikely  that  between  Matthew  and 
Luke  any  direct  dependence  should  be  assumed.   They 
narrate  essentially  the  same  events   in  such  widely 
different  form  and  order  that  one  can  scarcely  sup- 
pose that  either  writer  used  the  work  of  the  other. 
The  narratives  of  the  infancy,  the  genealogies,  and  the 
account  of  Jesus'  appearance  in  Nazareth  are  repre- 
sentative examples.    Moreover,  except  in  those  parts 
1  Matt.  6  : 9-13.  2  Lk.  11 : 1-4. 


26 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  charac- 
teristics of 
Mark. 


The 

character- 
istics of 
Matthew. 


in  which  both  are  dependent  upon  Mark,  they  pursue 
quite  different  plans  in  the  selection  and  arrangement 
of  their  materials.  Besides  the  two  sources  mentioned, 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  used  other  documents  or 
memoranda  of  which  we  have  no  definite  knowledge. 
Each  had  sources  of  his  own  for  his  gospel  of  the  in- 
fancy and  for  his  genealogy.  Luke  has  incorporated 
a  long  narrative  into  the  body  of  his  Gospel,  contain- 
ing many  of  the  most  important  sayings  and  deeds  of 
Jesus,  a  great  part  of  which  is  found  in  neither  Mark 
nor  Matthew.^  In  this  travel-document,  as  it  is  some- 
times called,  we  doubtless  have  an  example  of  one  or 
more  of  the  many  sources  of  information  which  Luke, 
according  to  his  Preface,  had  carefully  collated  in  his 
effort  accurately  to  trace  the  course  of  Jesus'  life  from 
its  beginning  to  its  close. 

Each  one  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  has  marked  char- 
acteristics of  its  own.  Mark  is  made  up  mainly  of 
graphic  pictures  of  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Dis- 
courses and  parables  are  relatively  less  prominent.  In 
Mark,  for  example,  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount "  is 
entirely  wanting.  He  begins  his  narrative  with  an 
account  of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  —  the 
point,  no  doubt,  at  which  the  common  apostolic  tradi- 
tion of  Jesus'  public  ministry  commenced.  He  pre- 
sents nothing  corresponding  to  the  preliminary  history 
offered  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  Quite  in  accord  with 
the  tradition  respecting  its  origin,  the  Gospel  evinces 
a  special  interest  for  Peter,  though  not  in  any  one- 
sided or  partisan  sense.  The  author  displays  no  spe- 
cial doctrinal  tendency,  is  quite  at  home  in  the  apostolic 
circle  in  general,  and  depicts  the  gospel  as  destined  for 
the  whole  world.^ 

In  Matthew  the  Judeo-Christian  interest  is  domi- 
nant. His  genealogy  traces  the  descent  of  Jesus  from 
1  Lk.  7  : 1-18  :  15.  «  Mk.  13  :  10. 


RECORDS    OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     27 

Abraham.  His  constant  effort  is  to  show  that  the 
events  of  Jesus'  life  happened  in  fulfilment  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy.  "  In  order  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled "  is  a  frequently  recurring  phrase,  especially  in 
the  opening  chapters.^  But  although  the  author  was 
a  Jew  and  aimed  to  depict  the  work  of  Christ  in  its 
organic  relation  to  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  unwar- 
ranted to  ascribe  to  his  Gospel  a  Judaizing  "  tendency." 
No  Gospel  exhibits  the  formal  piety  of  the  Pharisees 
in  a  more  unfavorable  light ;  ^  none  lays  stronger  empha- 
sis upon  love  to  God  and  man  as  constituting  the  es- 
sence of  religion.^  The  author  has  reproduced  the 
universalistic  tone  of  Jesus'  teaching  in  many  of  its 
most  striking  expressions.''  It  cannot  even  be  said 
that  he  wrote  exclusively  for  Jews.  His  citations 
from  the  Septuagint^  and  his  translation  of  Hebrew 
words  ^  show  that  he  counted  upon  Greek,  as  well  as 
Jewish,  readers. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke,  besides  being  marked  by  the  style  The  charac- 
and  tone  of  a  practised  writer,  displays  in  an  eminent  de-  Luk^J^^  °' 
gree  the  conviction  that  Christ's  saving  purpose  was  uni- 
versal. In  his  genealogy  he  connects  him  with  Adam, 
that  is,  with  humanity.^  This  Gospel  depicts  Jesus  as 
preeminently  Saviour  of  the  sick  and  the  poor.  He 
came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.  One 
needs  but  to  remember  that  Luke  alone  narrates  the 
Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  the  kindred  parables 
which  embody  this  idea,^  in  order  to  see  how  charac- 
teristic is  this  aspect  of  the  third  Gospel.  With  spe- 
cial fondness  he  describes  elements  of  goodness  in  the 
despised  Samaritans.^    His  version  of  the  Beatitudes 

1  E.g.  Matt.  1  :  22  ;  2  :  15,  17,  23.     Cf.  21  : 1-11. 

2  Matt.  5  :  20  ;  6  :  5  ff.  '^  E.g.  Matt.  1 :  23. 
8  Matt.  22  :  34-40.                    .         '  Lk.  3 :  38. 

4  Matt.  22  : 1-14  ;  28  :  19,  20.  »  ch.  16. 

6  E.g.  Matt.  13 :  36.  »  Lk.  10 :  33  ff. ;  17  :  16. 


28 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


The  dates 
of  the 
Synoptics. 


The  histor- 
ical char- 
acter and 
credibility 
of  the 
Synoptics. 


represents  the  kingdom  as  a  boon  to  the  poor,  the  sor- 
rowing, and  the  persecuted.^  To  such  an  extent  does 
this  Gospel  emphasize  the  mission  of  Christ  to  the 
unfortunate  and  despised  classes ;  so  constantly  does 
it  describe  him  as  seeking  the  degraded  and  the  hope- 
less, that  some  have  attributed  an  ascetic  character 
to  the  Gospel,  declaring  that  it  makes  virtues  of  pov- 
erty and  suffering  as  such.  This  is  unwarranted. 
Jesus  did  care  for  those  for  whom  no  one  else  cared. 
He  came  to  the  poor  and  the  miserable.  He  found 
the  "  sinful "  more  susceptible  to  his  truth  than  the 
"  righteous."  Luke  has  given  us  in  this  respect  one  of 
the  most  real  and  touching  aspects  of  our  Lord's  mis- 
sion and  work. 

We  have  no  means  of  determining  the  exact  dates 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Mark  is  commonly  dated 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  70  a.d.,  Matthew 
and  Luke  thereafter.  Zahn  assigns  to  them  the  fol- 
lowing dates:  Mark,  67,  Luke,  75,  Matthew,  in  its 
present  Greek  form,  85.^  Harnack  refers  Mark  to  the 
years  65-70,  Matthew  to  the  time  of  Jerusalem's  over- 
throw, 70,  and  Luke  to  the  period  80-93.^  Jiilicher 
assigns  all  three  Synoptics  to  later  and  more  indefinite 
periods :  Mark  to  70-100,  Matthew  to  81-96,  and  Luke 
to  80-120."*  We  cannot  say  anything  more  definite 
than  this:  Mark  was  probably  written  before  70, 
Matthew  about  70,  and  Luke  after  70  a.d. 

Much  more  important  than  the  question  of  date  is 
the  question  respecting  the  historicity  and  credibility 
of  these  Gospels.     It  is  noticeable  that  no  one  of  the 

1  Lk.  6  :  20-26. 

2  See  the  chronological  table  appended  to  his  Einleitung  in 
das  N.  T. 

8  See  his   Chronologic,  Appendix.     These  dates,  however, 
were  taken  down  at  his  lectures. 
*  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T. 


RECORDS  OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     29 

Synoptists  makes  any  appeal  to  authority  or  lays  any 
claim  to  a  supernatural  authentication  of  his  work. 
No  one  of  them  places  his  own  personality  in  the  fore- 
ground, even  to  the  extent  of  betraying  his  name  to 
his  readers.  For  a  knowledge  of  the  authors  we  are 
wholly  dependent  upon  ecclesiastical  tradition.  Only 
the  third  evangelist  has  given  us  any  hint  respecting  the 
method  of  his  work  and  the  sources  of  his  knowledge. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  sole  claim  which  he  makes  is 
that,  having  investigated  his  subject  carefully,  he 
possesses  the  requisite  historical  information  for  writ- 
ing a  trustworthy  narrative  of  the  Lord's  life.  When 
we  add  to  this  claim  the  testimony  of  the  earliest 
tradition  we  secure  this  result :  Our  Synoptic  Gospels 
are  based  in  the  main  upon  apostolic  tradition  as  em- 
bodied (1)  in  the  collection  of  discourses  which  was 
composed  by  Matthew,  and  (2)  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Lord's  words  and  deeds  which  Mark  had  derived  from 
the  testimony  of  Peter.  Although  no  one  of  these  Gos- 
pels was  written  by  an  apostle  or  an  eye-witness,  they 
all  stand  in  immediate  connection  with  apostolic  testi- 
mony, and  were  composed  on  the  basis  of  tradition 
which  had  come  direct  to  the  writers  from  those 
who  "from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word."  ^  Wliat  better  attestation,  in 
a  purely  historical  judgment,  is  desirable  or  possible  ? 

I  have  treated  the  Synoptic   Gospels   together  on  Diflferences 
account  of  their  obvious  kinship  and  interdependence.   Synoptics 
As  striking  as  their  mutual  resemblance  is  their  com-  ^"^^.J^® 
mon  divergence  in  style,  tone,  and  contents  from  the  Gospel, 
fourth  Gospel.     This  Gospel  covers  quite  a  different 
area  from  that  of  the  Synoptics.     In  John  the  princi- 
pal scene  of  Jesus'  labors  is  Jerusalem,  in  the  Synop- 
tics it  is  Galilee.     Not  only  is  the  language  in  which 
Jesus'  teaching  is  depicted  widely  different  in  the  two 
iLk.  1:2. 


30 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  fourth 
Gospel  an 
interpreta- 
tion rather 
than  a 
report. 


sources ;  there  is  an  equally  noticeable  difference  in  em- 
phasis and  contents.  In  the  Synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus 
the  parables  are  the  most  striking  and  distinctive  fea- 
ture ;  in  John  we  not  only  meet  with  allegories  instead 
of  parables,  but  we  find  that  these  two  analogous  forms 
of  teaching  are  quite  distinct  in  subject  and  purpose. 
In  the  Synoptics  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  chiefly  pre- 
sented in  short  and  incisive  expressions ;  where  long 
discourses  are  reported  they  bear  all  the  marks  of 
collections  of  sayings  which  have  been  grouped  to- 
gether. In  John,  on  the  contrary,  the  teaching  is 
presented  in  the  form  of  elaborate  addresses  upon 
definite  themes,  such  as  the  discourse  on  the  bread  of 
life,  in  chapter  6,  and  that  upon  Jesus'  departure  and 
the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  in  chapters  14-17.  In  the 
Synoptics  Jesus  speaks  less  of  himself;  in  John  he 
dwells  at  length  upon  the  nature  and  import  of  his 
own  person  as  the  unique  Son  of  God.  Instead  of 
his  speedy  return  to  earth  in  power  and  glory,  of  which 
we  read  in  the  Synoptics,  we  read  in  John  of  the 
coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  substitute  and  compen- 
sation for  his  personal  presence. 

Such  striking  differences  can  only  be  explained  on 
the  supposition  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  so  much 
a  chronicle  as  an  interpretation  of  Jesus'  words  and 
deeds.  Tradition  refers  its  composition  to  the  closing 
years  of  the  Apostle  John,  who  is  said  to  have  lived 
till  near  the  end  of  the  first  century.  On  this  view  of 
its  origin  the  fourth  Gospel  would  be  a  free  version, 
in  the  terms  of  the  writer's  own  thought  and  experience, 
of  what  the  teaching  and  life  of  Jesus  meant  to  him 
after  a  long  life  of  reflection.  It  presents  to  us  the 
picture  of  the  Saviour  which  had  become  mirrored 
upon  the  soul  of  the  evangelist  during  the  half  century 
or  more  of  his  devoted  discipleship  and  service  to 
Christ.     Unlike  the  Synoptic  tradition,  it  is  not  so 


BECOBDS  OF  JESUS'    WORDS  AND  DEEDS     31 

much  a  report  of  Jesus'  words  and  deeds,  as  a  repro- 
duction of  the  meaning  which  his  person  and  work  had 
assumed  for  one  who  had  long  lived  in  the  mystic 
contemplation  and  experience  of  his  saving  power. 

Many  scholars,  however,  on  the  ground  of  internal  The 
difficulties,  doubt  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  authorship. 
Gospel  and  assign  it  to  the  post-apostolic  period.  The 
Tubingen  criticism  held  that  it  originated  late  in  the 
second  century.  To-day  a  considerably  earlier  date  is 
admitted  by  most  of  those  who  deny  the  Gospel  to 
John.  An  increasing  number  of  critics  maintain  an 
apostolic  basis,  or  some  form  of  indirect  and  secondary 
apostolic  authorship,  and  regard  it  as  a  product  of  "  the 
school  of  John  "  at  Ephesus.^  On  either  of  the  views 
which  I  have  stated  the  Gospel  would  be,  in  its  relation 
to  the  form  and  proportions  of  Jesus'  teaching,  a 
secondary  source,  and  I  have  accordingly  based  my 
exposition  primarily  upon  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

The  leading  characteristics  of  the  type  of  religious  The  peculiar, 
thought  which  comes  to  expression  in  the  fourth  Gos-  johanni'ne 
pel  are  as  follows  :  (1)  The  viewing  of  the  historical  type  of 
as  a  disclosure  of  the  divine  and  external.     The  Christ    ®*^  ^"^* 
of  history  is  constantly  regarded  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  divine  nature  and  purpose  which  he  reveals ; 
his  work  is  an  expression  in  terms  of  human  action  and 
experience  of  the  mysterious  heavenly  world  in  which 
his  life  is  rooted.     Even  such  an  act  as  washing  the 
disciples'  feet  springs  from  the  consciousness  that  he 
came  forth  from  God  and  was  going  again  to  God.* 
(2)  The  absolute  universality  of  revelation.     Christ's 
revealing,  saving  work  represents  the  action  of  forces 
and  laws  which  are  eternally  operative  in  enlightening 
and  saving  men.      He  is  the  heavenly  light  which 
lighteth  every  man.*    In  all  ages  there  have  been  those, 

1  See  Bacon,  Introduction^  ch.  xi. 

a  Jn.  13 :  3.  «  Jn.  1 :  4,  9. 


32  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

outside  the  Jewisli  fold,  who  have  heard  his  voice  and 
followed  him.^  (3)  Strikingly  comprehensive  statements 
respecting  the  nature  of  the  Christian  life.  All  duty 
is  comprehended  in  Godlikeness ;  to  live  in  fellowship 
with  God  is  the  sum  of  all  Christian  requirements. 
(4)  An  intuitive  perception  of  the  deeper  meanings  of 
religious  truth.  Our  author  does  not  argue ;  he  sees. 
He  does  not  expect  to  convince  those  who  have  no 
spiritual  discernment,  but  is  confident  that  those  whose 
hearts  are  susceptible  to  heavenly  truth  will  welcome 
it  when  once  it  is  clearly  presented  to  them.  (5)  An 
intensely  spiritual  conception  of  religion.  Our  author 
says  nothing  of  institutions ;  he  has  little  interest  in 
forms  or  rites  or  any  of  the  outward  accompaniments 
of  religion.  God  may  be  worshipped  with  equal  advan- 
tage anywhere,  provided  only  he  is  worshipped  in  spirit 
and  in  truth.^  The  fourth  Gospel  is  a  classic  expres- 
sion of  the  reality  and  sufficiency  of  the  life  of  the 
spirit. 

1  Jn.  10 :  16.  a  Jn.  4  :  24. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   METHODS    OF   JESUS'   TEACHING ' 

"Never  man  so  spake  "  ^  was  the  verdict  of  those  General 
who  heard  Jesus'  words.  There  must  have  been  a  jeS^*®'^  ®^ 
singular  freshness,  originality,  and  impressiveness  in  teaching, 
his  speech.  His  frank,  crisp,  incisive  utterances  com- 
pelled attention,  while  his  startling  rejoinders  to  ques- 
tions and  criticisms  often  constituted  his  most  effective 
defence.  "  Did  ye  never  read  what  David  did  ?  "  * 
"  What  is  written  in  the  law  ?  how  readest  thou  ?  "  * 
"  Let  him  that  is  without  sin  among  you  cast  the  first 
stone,"  ^  —  these  are  examples  of  the  sayings  by  which 
he  met  difficulties  or  objections  more  effectively  than 
'Could  have  been  done  by  labored,  arguments.  How 
clear,  simple,  and  pointed  were  many  of  his  words ! 
"  Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged ;  "  ^  "  The  sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath ;  "  ^ 
"  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;  "  ^  "  It  is  more 
blessed  to  give  than  to  receive,"  ^  —  how  such  words  as 

^  General  References :  Trench,  Brace,  and  Julicher  on  the  .^ 

Parables  (the  last  untranslated)  ;  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  , 

I,  106-172;  J.  H.  Thayer,  "The  Ethical  Method  of  Jesus," 
in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  for  December,  1900; 
Mathews,  "On  the  Interpretation  of  Parables,"  in  the  Ameri- 
can Journal  of  Theology  for  April,  1898  ;  Sanday's  article, 
"Jesus  Christ,"  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  This 
elaborate  and  valuable  article  contains  also  a  concise  sketch  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

2  Jn.  7 :  46.  «  Matt.  7 : 1. 

«  Mk.  2  :  35.  '  Mk.  2 :  27. 

*Lk.  10:26.  8  Matt.  5:17. 

6Jn.  8:7.  »  Acts  20:36. 


34 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  teach- 
ing of  Jesus 
and  that  of 
the  scribes 
contrasted. 


these  pierce  to  the  very  heart  of  the  subject  in  hand ! 
It  is  not  strange  that  those  who  heard  Jesus  speak  were 
astonished  at  his  teaching;  they  had  never  heard 
anything  like  it  before ;  it  was  not  like  that  of  their 
scribes.^ 

The  methods  of  teaching  current  in  Jesus'  time  were 
highly  formal  and  scholastic.  The  primary  subject  of 
study  was  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  work  of  the  teacher 
was  to  interpret  and  apply  its  maxims.  It  was  assumed 
that  all  wisdom  needful  to  man  was  to  be  found  in  the 
law ;  it  needed  but  to  be  elicited  by  ingenious  exegesis. 
When,  therefore,  some  problem  or  situation  presented 
itself  for  which  the  law  did  not  offer  a  clear  solution, 
the  answer  was  sought  in  some  occult  meaning.  Thus 
grew  up  a  fantastic  system  of  allegorical  interpretation 
which  derived  as  many  meanings  from  Scripture  as  the 
circumstances  required.  While  graver  moral  considera- 
tions were  not  wholly  overlooked,  the  questions  to 
which  the  maxims  and  distinctions  which  were  deduced 
by  this  process  from  the  law  were  applied  were  largely 
petty  and  trifling.  They  concerned  such  things  as  the 
breadth  of  phylacteries,  the  washing  of  cups  and  plat- 
ters, and  the  tithing  of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin.^  Pro- 
foundly earnest  as  were  great  rabbis  like  Hillel  and 
Jochanan  ben  Zaccai,  and  noble  as  are  many  of  its  coun- 
sels, the  tendency  of  Pharisaism  was  toward  religious 
exclusiveness  and  the  preference  of  rule  to  impulse. 
Even  the  recognition  of  the  yetser  ha  ra  and  the  yetser 
ha  tob, — the  evil  and  the  good  tendency  of  the  flesh 
and  soul  respectively,  —  which  must  always  prevent 
indiscriminate  condemnation  of  Judaism,  did  not  avail 
to  check  the  drift  toward  academic  morality,  with  its 
unavoidable  accompaniments  of  pride  and  professional- 
ism on  the  part  of  the  rabbis  as  a  class.    It  was,  indeed, 

1  Mk.  1 :  22. 

2  Matt.  23 :  5,  23  ;  Mk.  7 :  4. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'   TEACHING       35 

all  but  inevitable  that  their  teaching  should  show  an 
increasing  disregard  of  originality,  the  fundamental 
elements  of  morality,  and,  above  all,  the  abiding  pres- 
ence of  God.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  was  as  different 
from  this  as  the  temple  of  the  skies  under  which  he 
taught  was  different  from  the  narrow  room  where  the 
scribe  taught  his  pupils.^ 

When  we  open  the  Gospels  and  see  Jesus  at  his  jesus' 
work  of  teaching,  we  observe  how  perfectly  informal  Planner  of 
and  natural  his  method  is.     We  find  him  standing  or  his  disciples, 
sitting  in  the  midst  of  his  pupils,  speaking  to  them 
familiarly  and  answering  their  questions.    "  And  when 
he  had  sat  down,  his  disciples  came  unto  him,  and  he 
opened  his  mouth  and  taught  them  " ;  ^  "  And  he  an- 
swered them,  saying,"  ^  —  such  phases  reflect  the  natu- 
ralness  of  his   method.     Once  when  the  multitude 
thronged  him  he  entered  a  fishing-boat,  and  taught 
the  people  assembled  on  the  lake  shore.'*     His  method 
was  strikingly  simple,  spontaneous,  and  free.* 

Unlike  the  religious  teachers  of  his  time,  Jesus  The  author!, 
taught  with  an  authority  of  his  own.     He  did  not  ^f  h^g"®^^ 
proceed,  as  did  the  scribes,  by  rehearsing  the  sayings  teaching, 
of  others,  and  drawing  out  inferences  from  their  words. 
He  spoke  from  the  conscious  possession  of  truth  in 
himself.     His  teaching  flowed  forth  from  the  clear, 
pure  fountain  of  knowledge  within.     His  certitude  was 
not  derived  from  others ;  it  was  his  own.     He  uttered 

1  Cf .  Farrar,  Life  of  Christ,  ch.  18 ;  Stapfer,  Palestine  in 
the  Time  of  Christ,  Bk.  II,  ch.  ill ;  Mathews,  N.  T.  Times  in 
Palestine,  161,  162.  ^  Matt.  5 : 1. 

8  E.g.  Matt.  16 :  2,  et  al.  *  Mk.  4 :  1. 

^  *'A  mode  of  teaching  which  aims  at  popular  intelligibility  is 
exposed  to  the  risk  of  degenerating  into  platitude  and  triviality, 
and  one  which  aims  at  pregnant  brevity  easily  becomes  stilted 
and  obscure.  But  Jesus  perfectly  combined  the  two  quali- 
ties, and  by  this  very  means  attained  a  peculiar  and  classic 
beauty  of  style."  —Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  I,  109. 


36  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

his  truths  with  a  calm,  unclouded  conviction  which 
was  the  product,  not  of  argument,  but  of  spiritual  in- 
tuition. He  did  not  claim  to  possess  all  knowledge ; 
upon  many  themes  he  refrained  from  pronouncing  judg- 
ment ;  they  lay  outside  the  scope  of  his  work  as  the 
Founder  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  within  the  field 
of  religion  he  spoke  with  all  the  accents  of  certainty 
and  authority.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you  "  was 
the  keynote  of  his  sayings  concerning  God  and  man 
and  duty.  The  men  of  old  time  or  of  the  present  may 
have  said  this  or  that,  "  but  I  say  unto  you  "  ^  —  that 
was  the  tone  in  which  he  uttered  his  instruction.^ 
Hisdialec-  The  method  of  Jesus  was  not  controversial.  He 
*^^-  saw  the  truth  and  declared  it ;  he  was  little  disposed 

to  argue  about  it.     He  assumed  that  the  truths  which 
he  had  to  teach  were  the  truths  of  man's  own  nature, 
that  they  shone  in  their  own  light,  and  were  not  made 
more  evident  by  elaborate  discussion  and  argument. 
Still,  he  was  often  drawn  into  discussion  by  his  critics 
and  opponents,  and  was  obliged  to  correct  their  mis- 
illustrations  understandings  or  expose  their  fallacies.     Let  us  note 
ofar^S^^^    a  few  examples  of  his  dialectic.      When  the  scribes 
ment.  criticised  him  for  associating  with  men  who  had  no 

social  standing,  his  reply  was,  "  They  that  are  whole 
have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick :  I 
came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners."^  The 
parables  in  Luke  15,  in  which  he  shows  how  men  seek 
that  which  is  lost,  were  uttered  in  refutation  of  the 
same  objection  and  in  justification  of  his  method.  He 
thus  lays  bare  the  motives  of  his  critics  in  their  whole 
attitude  toward  others,  and  places  in  clearest  contrast 
with  them  his  own.  Again,  when  he  was  accused  of 
profaning  the  sabbath,  his  answer  was  that  those  who 

1  Matt.  5  :  22,  et  al. 

2  Cf.  Hamack,  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  pp.  22,  23. 
8  Mk.  2 :  17. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'   TEACHING        37 

objected  to  the  plucking  of  ears  of  grain  by  his  hungry- 
disciples  on  the  sabbath  had  confused  the  whole  sub- 
ject by  conceiving  of  the  sabbath  as  an  end  to  which 
man  was  a  means,  instead  of  a  means  for  promoting 
the  good  of  mau.^  Other  representative  examples  of 
the  way  in  which  he  dealt  with  questions  or  objections 
are  found  in  his  description  of  the  character  and  scope 
of  true  neighbor  love  in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samar- 
itan ;  ^  his  demand  for  a  great  act  of  self-sacrifice  in  the 
case  of  the  rich  young  ruler,  who  claimed  that  he  had 
fulfilled  all  the  divine  requirements ;  ^  his  reply  about 
giving  tribute  to  Caesar ;  ^  and  his  answer,  based  on  their 
own  sacred  law,  to  the  objection  made  by  the  Saddu- 
cees  to  the  idea  of  a  resurrection.^  What  one  espe- 
cially notes  in  these  conversations  and  disputes  is 
Jesus'  frank  and  candid  treatment  of  his  critics  and 
of  their  questions.  There  is  no  evasion  of  the  real 
point  at  issue,  no  oversubtlety,  no  taking  of  an  unfair 
advantage.  Every  point  is  treated  with  as  much  seri- 
ousness as  acumen;  every  difficulty  is  met  and  consid- 
ered in  a  manner  which  evinces  a  pure  love  of  truth. 

In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  Three 
represented  as  having  taken  three  principal  outward  oJtw'ard^ 
forms.     These  are  the  pithy,  sententious  saying,  the  forms  of 
outward  action,  and  the  parable.     In  the  fourth  Gos-  teaching, 
pel,  as  we  have  seen,*  his  teaching  appears  more  in  the 
form  of  extended  discourses  and  allegories.     Let  us 
more  closely  observe  these  three  Synoptic  forms  of 
his  teaching  in  order. 

Examples  of  those  short,  crisp  sayings  in  which  he  Examples 
was  accustomed  to  embody  his  instruction,  are  as  fol-  f/^j^^o„j »; 
lows:  "With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  meas-  of  Jesus, 
ured  unto  you  " ;  ^  "  Many  that  are  first  shall  be  last ; 

iMk.  2:27.  8Mk.  10:17  ff.      ^  Mk.  12  :  20,  27. 

a  Lk.  10 :  30-37.      <  Mk.  12 :  17.  «  P.  30.  ^  Mk.  4 :  24. 


38  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

and  the  last  first " ;  ^  "  He  that  humbleth  himself  shall 
be  exalted";^  "Whosoever  would  save  his  life  shall 
lose  it,"  etc. ;^  "Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen."* 
His  use  of  It  will  be  noticed  how  many  of  these  sayings  are 
paradox.  paradoxical  in  form.  They  strike  the  ear  and  arrest 
special  attention  by  their  bold  divergence  from  the 
common  judgments  of  men.  Their  suggestiveness 
and  force  arise  from  the  contrast  which  they  point 
between  a  lower  and  a  higher  meaning  of  the  terms 
employed.  For  example,  many  who  had  been  earliest 
and  foremost  in  outward  attachment  to  Jesus  would 
finally  come  farthest  short  of  fulfilling  the  demands 
of  the  Christlike  life.''  He  who  selfishly  seeks  promi- 
nence will  fail  of  the  true  exaltation  which  consists  in 
the  esteem  of  men,  and,  above  all,  in  the  favor  of  God.^ 
In  its  form  this  type  of  Jesus'  teaching  resembled  the 
method,  long  current  in  the  Jewish  schools,  of  embody- 
ing moral  and  religious  truth  in  pointed  proverbs  and 
maxims.  Such  sayings  may  be  called  the  "  wisdom  " 
of  Jesus ;  ^  they  represent  the  perfection  of  that  mode  of 
teaching  which  is  illustrated  in  the  sapiential  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.^ 
Teaching  Examples  of  the  way  in  which  Jesus  taught  by 

by  action.  action  are  seen  in  his  taking  a  child  in  his  arms  in 
order  to  emphasize  the  necessity  of  childlikeness  in 
those  who  would  be  members  of  his  kingdom,^  and 
in  his  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  as  an  object-les- 


1  Mk.  10 :  31.  3  Mk.  8  :  35.  «  Mk.  4  :  24. 

2  Lk.  14  :  11.  4  Matt.  21 :  14.  ^  Lk.  14  :  11. 

■^  See  Professor  C.  A.  Briggs,  on  "The  Wisdom  of  Jesus,"  in 
The  Expository  Times,  June-August,  1897. 

8  On  the  "Wisdom  Literature,"  see  Schtirer's  History,  pas- 
sim; Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  pp.  117  ff.,  and  Driver's 
Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament  (consult 
Index).  All  these  works  contain  ample  references  to  the 
literature  of  the  subject.  »  Mk.  9 :  33  ff. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'   TEACHING        39 

son  in  humility.^  The  cursing  of  the  barren  fig  tree  ^ 
may  be  called  a  parable  in  action  on  account  of  the 
dramatic  and  didactic  character  and  object  of  the  ac- 
tion. The  miracles  of  Jesus  may  also  be  reckoned 
among  the  methods  of  his  teaching,  since  they  were 
never  mere  exhibitions  of  power,  but  were  regarded 
by  him  as  a  part  of  his  revealing,  saving  work  —  a 
method  of  disclosing  the  grace  of  God  which  wrought 
in  his  beneficent  ministry.' 

But  of  all  the  methods  of  teaching  which  Jesus  em-  Jesus'  use 
ployed  the  parable  is  the  most  characteristic  and  strik-  °  P"*  ®^* 
ing.  A  parable  is  a  narrative  of  some  real  or  imaginary 
event  in  nature  or  in  common  life,  which  is  adapted 
to  suggest  a  moral  or  religious  truth.  The  parable 
rests  upon  some  correspondence,  more  or  less  exact, 
between  events  in  nature  or  in  human  experience  and 
the  truths  of  religion.  Two  general  classes  of  para- 
bles may  be  distinguished:  (1)  those  in  which  some 
fact  in  the  actual  world  is  adduced  as  illustrating  a 
moral  or  religious  principle ;  and,  (2)  those  in  which 
some  imagined  event  —  which  might  naturally  hap- 
pen—  is  narrated  to  illustrate  a  spiritual  truth  or 
process.  Examples  of  the  former  sort  of  parables 
are :  "  They  that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physi- 
cian, but  they  that  are  sick  "  ;  *  "  Can  the  sons  of  the 
bride-chamber  fast,  while  the  bridegroom  is  with 
them?"''  and  the  sayings  about  the  sewing  of  un- 
dressed cloth  upon  an  old  garment,®  about  the  division 
of  a  kingdom  against  itself,^  and  about  the  putting  of 
the  lamp  under  the  bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  instead 

iJn.  13:12ff.  «  Mk.  11 :  13  ff. 

8  See  Matt.  11 : 5,  21,  22  ;  Jn.  14  :  10.  On  the  didactic  import 
of  Jesus'  miracles,  see  Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  Vol.  II,  Bk.  II, 
eh.  vii. 

4Mk.  2:17.  «Mk.  2:21. 

&  Mk.  2 :  19.  7  Mk.  3 :  24. 


40 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Parable- 
germs. 


Parable- 
stories. 


Difference 
between  the 
parable  and 
the  fable. 


of  upon  the  lamp-stand.^  In  John  also  this  species 
of  parable  is  found,  as  in  3 :  8  and  in  12  :  24. 

These  forms  of  teaching  are  brief,  undeveloped  para- 
bles; they  have  been  sometimes  called  "  parable-germs." 
They  are  not  elaborated  into  a  narrative  or  story,  but 
are  succinct  statements  of  natural  events  or  customs 
which  readily  suggest  some  religious  fact  or  principle. 
In  popular  usage  these  "  parable-germs  "  are  not  gen- 
erally spoken  of  as  parables  at  all ;  but  it  is  evident 
that  they  really  come  under  that  designation,  and  they 
are  sometimes  so  called  in  the  New  Testament  {e.g.  in 
Mk.  3:23). 

It  is  the  second  class  of  parables — the  parable- 
stories —  which  excite  the  most  interest  in  the  New 
Testament  student.  Their  vivid,  pictorial  character 
is  especially  adapted  to  impress  the  imagination.  No 
parts  of  Jesus'  teaching  are  so  easily  remembered  as 
the  parables.  Such  pictures  as  those  of  the  sower 
going  forth  to  sow,^  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard,^ 
and  of  the  returning  prodigal,''  are  photographed  upon 
the  mind  of  every  reader  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  nature  of  the  parable  can,  perhaps,  be  best 
illustrated  by  comparing  it  briefly  with  some  other 
figurative  forms  of  speech.  The  difference  between 
the  parable  and  the  fable  is  readily  observed.  The 
fable  moves  on  a  lower  plane.  It  is  less  serious  and 
dignified,  both  in  its  choice  of  material  and  in  the 
lesson  which  it  aims  to  teach.  One  need  but  recall 
the  fables  of  ^sop  in  illustration.  They  are  mainly 
constructed  out  of  impossible  transactions  and  con- 
versations of  animals.  The  lessons  which  they  teach 
are,  for  the  most  part,  lessons  of  prudential  morality. 
The  parable,  on  the  other  hand,  —  at  least,  as  Jesus 
uses  it,  —  is  devoted  to  teaching  the  highest  spiritual 

iMk.  4:21.  8  Matt.  21 :  28  ff. 

2  Mk.  4  :  3  ff.  4  Lk.  16 :  11  ff. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'   TEACHING        41       - 

trutlis.  Moreover,  it  is  constructed  of  what  I  may 
call  natural  materials,  events  which  either  happen  in 
nature  or  life,  or  circumstances  which  might  occur 
without  the  least  violation  of  reason  or  nature.  The 
fable,  then,  is  a  product  of  free  fancy  teaching  a  pru- 
dential lesson;  the  parable  is  a  natural  narrative 
teaching  some  deep  moral  or  religious  principle. 

Even  more  widely  does  the  parable  differ  from  the  The  parable 
myth.  Let  the  reader  recall  the  myths  of  the  Homeric  JJ^yt^^® 
poems,  the  fanciful  stories  of  gods  and  heroes  which 
constitute  the  early  literature  of  the  Greeks.  When 
we  read  them  in  our  youth  we  often  wondered  whether 
they  were  all  true,  or  all  false,  or  half  true  and  half 
false.  In  the  myth  the  truth  intended  to  be  conveyed 
and  the  story  employed  to  convey  it  are  identified. 
The  myth  wears  the  guise  of  truth.  It  offers  itself  to 
us  as  the  truth,  and  affords  us  no  ready  means  of  dis- 
tinguishing, as  respects  its  truthfulness,  between  its 
form  and  its  substance.  In  the  myth  the  fancy  loses 
the  truth  in  its  own  creations.  The  parable,  on  the 
contrary,  carefully  preserves  the  distinction  between 
its  form,  the  parable-story,  and  its  essence,  the 
spiritual  truth  intended  to  be  illustrated.  Although 
both  the  myth  and  the  parable  are  forms  of  fiction, 
they  differ  very  widely,  since  the  myth  is  far  removed 
from  our  common  human  nature  and  reason,  while  the 
parable  keeps  close  to  them. 

The  proverb  differs  from  the  parable,  as  a  rule,  m  The  parable 
being  briefer.^  The  proverb  commonly  relates  to  cus-  p^verb. 
tom  and  to  practical  wisdom,  and  seldom  deals  with 
truths  which  are  distinctly  religious.  The  proverb 
may,  however,  be  figurative  or  parabolic  in  form  and 
capable  of  being  elaborated  into  a  parable.  Such  a 
proverb  is  seen  in  the  words,  "  If  the  blind  lead  the 
blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch." '  A  parable 
iMatt.  16:14. 


42 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  parable 
and  the 
allegory. 


How  are 
parables 
to  be  inter- 
preted ? 


might  certainly  be  constructed  by  developing  in  a 
narrative  form  the  idea  of  one  blind  man  leading  an- 
other, in  such  a  way  as  to  teach  the  importance  of 
seeking  trustworthy  guidance  in  life  and  duty. 

The  allegory  is  the  form  of  speech  which  most 
closely  resembles  the  parable.  The  narrative  about  the 
door  of  the  sheepfold  in  John  10  is  an  allegory.  The 
allegory  identifies  the  symbol  and  the  thing  signified, 
for  example,  " I  am  the  door " ;  "I  am  the  true  vine." 
The  parable,  on  the  other  hand,  keeps  these  distinct. 
The  allegory  hides  the  truth  in  the  figurative  form ; 
the  parable  suggests  it.  Trench  illustrates  the  differ- 
ence by  saying  that,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God "  ^  is 
allegorical,  because  Christ  is  identified  with  the  Lamb, 
while  "  Brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter  "  ^  is  para- 
bolical, because  it  is  a  comparison  and  not  an  identi- 
fication.^ It  will  thus  be  seen  that  an  allegory  needs 
no  interpretation,  since  it  carries  its  meaning  on  its 
surface,  whereas  the  meaning  of  a  parable,  being 
only  suggested,  may  be  more  or  less  evident.'* 

On  what  principles  are  parables  to  be  interpreted  ? 
The  most  diverse  methods  have  been  employed  among 

iJn.  1:36.  «  Is.  53:7. 

8  On  the  Parables,  p.  9. 

*  Trench  has  summarized  the  differences  of  which  I  have 
been  speaking  thus :  "To  sum  up  all,  then,  the  parable  differs 
from  the  fable,  moving  as  it  does  in  a  spiritual  world,  and 
never  transgressing  the  actual  order  of  things  natural  —  from 
the  mythns,  there  being  in  the  latter  an  unconscious  blending 
of  the  deeper  meaning  with  the  outward  symbol,  while  the  two 
remain  separate  and  separable  in  the  parable  —  from  the  proverb, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  more  fully  carried  out,  and  not  accidentally 
and  occasionally,  but  necessarily  figurative  —  from  the  allegory, 
comparing  as  it  does  one  thing  with  another,  but  at  the  same 
time  preserving  them  apart  as  an  inner  and  an  outer,  and  not 
transferring,  as  does  the  allegory,  the  properties  and  qualities 
and  relations  of  one  to  the  other."  —  On  the  Parables,  p.  10. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'   TEACHING       43 

scholars  in  seeking  their  meaning,  and  a  great  variety 
of  results  have  been  derived  from  them  in  popular 
Christian  teaching.  The  commonest  error  of  inter- 
preters is  to  apply  the  "  allegorical "  method  to  the 
parables,  that  is,  to  seek  to  find  some  special  and  dis- 
tinct meaning  in  each  detail  of  the  parable-story.  To 
some  of  the  parables  this  method  can  be  applied  with 
fairly  plausible  results,  either  because  the  parable  is 
so  simple  or  compact  in  character  that  it  makes  one 
indivisible  picture,  or  because  the  analogy  used  hap- 
pens to  be  especially  complete  and  many-sided.  In 
other  cases,  however,  this  method  breaks  down  entirely. 
Take,  for  example,  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 
the  steward  in  Luke  16 : 1  ff.  Whom  does  the  rich 
man  represent  ?  Some  say  God  ;  others,  the  Romans  ; 
others,  mammon  ;  still  others,  the  devil,  and  these  are 
but  a  few  of  the  answers  that  have  been  given.  Who 
is  the  steward  ?  We  find  a  similar  variety  of  answers : 
the  wealthy,  the  Israelitish  people,  sinners,  and  even 
Judas  Iscariot} 

It  is  obvious  that  there  could  hardly  be  such  wide  vagaries  of 
diversity  of  opinion  as  this  if  there  were  any  test  or  {."qJ^P'*®**' 
measure  for  determining  the  meaning  of  these  terms. 
The  truth  is  that  it  makes  no  difference  who  the  rich 
man  is,  or  who  the  steward  is.  They  represent  no 
particular  persons;  that  is  to  say,  the  point  of  the 
parable  does  not  depend  at  all  upon  finding  a  counter- 
part for  these  persons.  They  are  necessary  to  the 
parable-story,^  but  the  meaning  of  the  parable  turns  on 
what  the  steward  says,  and  not  on  who  he  is.     He  may 

1  Many  of  the  earlier  interpreters  identify  the  two  pence, 
which  the  Good  Samaritan  gave  to  the  host  (Lk.  10:  35),  with 
the  two  sacraments.  Vitringa  makes  the  servant  who  owed  ten 
thousand  talents  (Matt.  18 :  23)  to  mean  the  Pope,  and  the  whole 
parable  a  picture  of  events  in  mediaeval  history.  In  like  manner, 
the  pearl  of  great  price  (Matt.  13 :  46)  is  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  I 


44  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

be  anybody,  and  his  master  may  be  anybody ;  it  is  the 
action,  and  not  the  personnel,  of  the  parable  which 
contains  its   lesson.     That  this   is   so  is   seen  from 
the  eighth  and  ninth  verses.     The  shrewdness  of  the 
steward's  action  may  teach  a  wholesome  lesson  in  the 
right  use  of  wealth,  although  the  dishocesty  of  his 
method  cannot  be  commended. 
Absurd  con-       There  is  no  limit  to  the  fanciful  results  which  have 
theTneffor^^  been  drawn  from  the  parables  in  the  effort  to  make 
ical  every  character  which  is  introduced  into  them  repre- 

^^^  ^  '  sent  some  particular  person  in  the  application.  Whom 
do  the  ten  virgins  represent  ?  Who  is  the  merchant 
seeking  goodly  pearls  ?  Who  is  the  woman  who  puts 
the  leaven  in  the  meal,  and  who  is  the  one  who  sweeps 
the  house  in  search  of  the  lost  piece  of  money  ?  No 
answers  are  to  be  sought  to  such  questions.  The  force 
of  the  parables  just  alluded  to  depends  upon  the  prin- 
ciple which  the  action  described  illustrates. 
A  test  case.  Let  the  reader  test  for  himself  the  applicability  of 
the  allegorical  method  by  trying  it  in  the  case  of  the 
parable  of  the  unjust  judge.^  Who  is  the  judge  ?  He 
cannot  be  God,  for  he  is  an  unjust  judge,  who  neither 
fears  God  nor  regards  man.  Who  is  the  widow  ? 
She  cannot  represent  the  Christian  in  prayer,  for  she 
is  a  troublesome  and  shameless  person  w^ho  threatens 
the  judge  wdth  personal  violence  ^  in  case  he  does  not 
grant  her  request.  It  will  be  found  that  we  have 
here  a  picture  which  is  designed  to  teach  by  the  con- 
trast of  the  two  situations  the  certainty  that  prayer 
will  be  answered.  If  an  unjust  judge,  all  whose 
qualities  are  the  very  opposite  of  the  character  of 
God,  at  length   grants   the  persistent  applicant  her 

1  Lk.  18  :  2  ff. 

2  See  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  on  Lk,  18 : 5. 
Meyer  renders :  "That  she  may  not  at  last  come  and  beat  my 
face  black  and  blue."    In  loco. 


THE  METHODS  OF  JESUS'    TEACHING        45 

request,  not  from  any  interest  in  her  case,  —  for  he 
neither  fears  God  nor  regards  man,  —  but  solely  to 
escape  further  annoyance  or  danger,  how  much  more 
will  the  gracious  and  loving  God,  our  Father,  grant 
the  earnest  request  of  his  children !  This  is  an  ex- 
ample of  a  parable  which  is  constructed  more  upon  a 
contrast  than  upon  a  resemblance.  To  what  absurdity, 
then,  must  the  effort  to  treat  all  its  terms  as  having  a 
spiritual  parallel  conduct  the  interpreter. 

A  sound  general  principle  for  the  interpretation  of  The  general 
the  parable  is  that  it  is  intended  to  teach  one  single  fn"erpreta-^ 
truth.     The  parallel  between  the  story  which  embodies  tion  to  be 
this  truth  and  its  spiritual  counterpart  may  be  more  ^  ^^^^^  ' 
or  less  complete.     The  point  of  the  teaching  may  lie 
in  the  whole  picture  which   the  parable  presents,  or 
it  may  lie  in  some  single  aspect   or  element   of  the 
picture.     No  rule  for  accurately  measuring  the  range 
of  the  correspondence  can  be  laid  down.     The  parable 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  that  of  the  Sower  are  ex- 
amples of  parables   whose   significance  is  found  in 
the  entire  picture  which  they  present.     No  violence 
is  therefore  done  in  assigning  a  didactic  value  in  inter- 
pretation even  to  the  details  of  the  parable-story ;  in 
fact,  we  find  that  our  Lord  himself  does  this  in  ex- 
plaining the  import  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower. 

The  general  subject  with  which  the  parables  most  The  general 
commonly  deal  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  numer-  JJi^rShles.^*"* 
ous  parables  which  comprise  the  thirteenth  chapter  of 
Matthew  are  good  illustrations.  Sometimes  the  para- 
bles go  together  in  pairs,  teaching  two  closely  related 
aspects  of  the  same  general  truth.  Examples  are 
found  in  the  parables  of  the  Mustard  Seed  and  of  the 
Leaven,^  in  the  parabolic  sayings  about  the  piece  of 
undressed  cloth  and  the  new  wine,"  and  in  the  kindred 

iLk.  1.3:18-21. 
aMk.  2:21,  22. 


46  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

but  distinguishable  allegories  of  the  Door  of  the  Sheep- 
fold  ^  and  of  the  Good  Shepherd.^ 
The  popular       From  these  illustrations  of  the  methods  of  Jesus  in 
Jesus^  ^^        teaching  we  gain  some  impression  of  the  real  simplic- 
methods.        ity,  concreteness,  and  pointedness  of  his  instruction. 
Though  unconventional  and  levelled  to  the  needs  and 
understandings  of  plain  men,  it  dealt  with  the  loftiest 
spiritual  truth.     It  remains  to  all  time  the  peerless 
model   of  religious   teaching.     No  wonder  that  the 
common   people   listened  eagerly  to  his  words  ;^  no 
wonder  that  the  multitudes,  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  the  subtleties  and  sophistries  of  the  scribes,  "  were 
astonished  at  his  teaching."  * 

iJn.  10:1-10.  «Mk.  12:3. 

2  Jn.  10:11-18.  *  Matt.  7:28. 


CHAPTER  IV 

JESUS'    ATTITUDE   TOWARD   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT* 

In  his  teaching  Jesus  took  his  stand  distinctly  upon  Jesus  builds 
the  Old  Testament.  He  frequently  quoted  its  Ian-  o?d^esta- 
guage,  and  illustrated  and  enforced  his  truths  by  ment. 
appeal  to  its  authority.  He  regarded  his  own  teach- 
ing and  work  as  standing  in  close  historical  connec- 
tion with  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  heavenly 
Father  of  whom  he  spoke  was  no  other  than  the  God 
whom  the  Jews  worshipped.  "We  [Jews]  worship 
that  which  we  know;  for  salvation  is  from  the  Jews,"^ 
is  a  succinct  statement  of  Jesus'  attitude  toward  the 
Old  Covenant  as  exhibited  in  his  life.  He  assumed 
that  a  special  revelation  of  God  had  been  given  in  the 
history  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  that  their  career  had 
been  a  providential  preparation  for  the  Messiah.  He 
had  no  idea  of  establishing  a  wholly  new  religion. 
There  is  no  part  of  his  teaching  which  does  not  have 
its  roots  in  the  religion  of  Israel ;  nothing  which  is 
not  a  legitimate  development,  a  completion  of  elements 

1  General  References :  I  refer  here,  in  general,  to  the  The- 
ologies of  the^  New  Testament^  by  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Stevens, 
Holtzmann,  Gould,  and  Estes,  to  Wendt's  Teaching  of  JesuSj 
and  to  Bruce's  Kingdom  of  Ood,  in  all  of  which,  under  the 
appropriate  heading,  a  discussion,  more  or  less  complete,  of 
each  topic  pertaining  to  the  subject  of  our  study  will  be  found. 
See  also,  for  the  present  theme :  Mackintosh,  Christ  and  the 
Jewish  Law;  Alexander,  Tlie  Son  of  Man,  ch.  xi,  on  "Jesus 
and  the  Old  Testament "  ;  Jacob,  Jesu  Stellung  zum  niosaisrhen 
Qesetz,  and  the  works  of  SchUrer  and  Bousset  cited  under  Ch.  I. 

2  Jn.  4  :  22. 

47 


48 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  legal 
and  the 
prophetic 
tendencies 
in  Judaism. 


Jesus'  atti- 
tude 
toward 
these 
tendencies. 


of  truth,  which  were  contained  in  the  Old  Testament.^ 
This  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  his  ancestral  religion 
we  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  illustrate  in  the 
study  of  the  topics  which  are  to  follow. 

Did  Jesus,  then,  make  no  discrimination  among  the 
different  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  and  among  the 
various  religious  institutions  of  his  people?  When 
we  look  into  the  Old  Testament  we  find  that  its  books 
illustrate  chiefly  two  great  general  tendencies  of 
thought  and  life  —  the  legal  and  the  moral.  The 
ceremonial  system  which  is  detailed  in  the  Pentateuch 
furnishes  the  classic  example  of  the  one ;  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  the  best  illustration  of  the  other. 
This  twofold  tendency  became  even  more  marked  in 
the  later  Judaism.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  time  of 
Jesus  the  legal  method  of  thought  was  dominant  in 
Israel.  The  spirit  of  prophecy  had  departed,  and,  while 
there  were  individuals  of  deep  spirituality,  in  the  mass 
of  the  nation  legalism  and  ritualism  reigned  supreme. 

While  our  Lord  made  no  criticism  upon  the  cere- 
monial system  as  a  whole,  or  upon  its  special  institu- 
tions as  such,  it  is  evident  from  the  whole  tone  and 
drift  of  his  teaching  that  he  allied  himself  with  the 
moral  and  prophetic,  rather  than  with  the  legal,  ten- 
dency in  religious  thought  and  life.  How  remarkable 
is  it,  for  example,  that,  so  far  as  the  Gospels  inform 
us,  Jesus  never  mentioned  circumcision,^  the  rite  in 
which  the  Jews  gloried  ^  and  which  was  to  them-  the 
symbol  of  all  that  they  deemed  most  characteristic  in 
their  religion.     No  Jewish  religious  teacher  in  that 


1  "Nowhere  do  we  find  him  stating  and  teaching  anything 
as  to  the  nature  of  God  which  was  impossible  on  the  basis  of 
the  Old  Testament  religion."  — Wendt,  Teaching,  I,  184. 

2  That  is,  in  the  Synoptics  ;  the  one  reference  in  John  (7 :  22, 
23)  is  purely  incidental. 

3  Gal.  6:12-15. 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  49 

age  could  have  made  such  an  omission  unless  he  had 
possessed  unique  and  original  views  of  the  nature  and 
requirements  of  the  religious  life.^ 

It  is  also  evident  that  Jesus'  view  of  the  divineness  Jesus' 
of  the  Old  Testament  system  did  not  involve  its  per-  fst^^^te  of 
f  ection.  He  regarded  it  as  having  a  preparatory  and  the  Old 
partial  character.  The  maxim  which  he  applied  to  Testament, 
the  development  of  his  kingdom,  "First  the  blade, 
then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear,"  ^  would 
have  been  applicable  here.  Incidental  to  a  progres- 
sive revelation  and  in  consequence  of  the  limitations 
of  its  media  and  its  recipients,  there  are  imperfections 
in  the  maxims  and  customs  which  are  sanctioned  by 
the  law.  The  Mosaic  system  permitted  men  to  put 
away  their  wives  on  terms  which  Jesus  would  not 
sanction.  "For  your  hardness  of  heart,"  said  Jesus, 
"  he  [Moses]  wrote  you  this  commandment " ;  ^  that  is, 
it  was  a  law  which  was  adapted  to  a  rude  state  of  soci- 
ety —  a  useful,  restrictive  regulation  in  its  time,  but 
based  upon  an  inadequate  idea  of  the  true  nature  and 
sacredness  of  marriage.  The  "  men  of  old  time  "  *  — 
the  lawgivers  of  ancient  Israel  —  sanctioned  such  legal 
rules  as,  "An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth";* 
but  Jesus  laid  down  a  very  different  principle  respecting 
the  treatment  of  those  who  do  us  injury.  No  contrast 
could  be  more  pointed :  "  The  ancients  said  "  this  or 
that ;  "  but  I  say  unto  you  "  something  quite  different. 

On  what  principle  can  this  apparent  contradiction 

1  The  student  will  find  full  discussions  of  the  relation  of 
Jesus  to  contemporary  religious  thought  and  of  his  originality 
in  the  treatises  of  Schiirer  and  Bousset  on  the  Preaching  of 
Jesus,  already  cited  (see  p.  1).  Unfortunately,  they  are  not 
translated. 

2  Mk.  4 :  28.  »  Mk.  10  :  5.  *  Matt.  5 :  21. 

«  Matt.  6 :  38.  Cf.  Ex.  21 :  24,  26  ;  Lev.  24  :  19,  20  ; 
Deut.l9:21. 

B 


60 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Apparent 
contradic- 
tion in 
Jesus' 
attitude. 


Its  solution. 


His  view 
of  fasting. 


be  resolved  ?  How  can  the  Old  Testament  be  sacred 
and  its  contents  divine,  and  yet  be  marred  by  imperfect 
laws  or  defective  maxims  ?  How  can  we  explain  this 
seemingly  double-faced  attitude?  How  adjust  the 
conservatism  and  the  radicalism  of  Jesus? 

The  answer  must  be  that  he  regarded  the  Old  Testa- 
ment quite  differently  from  the  men  of  his  time. 
With  them  it  meant  an  outer  word  —  a  body  of  rules, 
commandments,  and  prohibitions,  enjoining  and  for- 
bidding certain  specific  acts ;  for  him  the  Old  Testa- 
ment meant  the  purpose  of  God  as  disclosed  in  Israel's 
history  —  the  voice  of  God  which  spoke  to  the  heart 
and  the  conscience  through  lawgiver  and  prophet. 
Jesus  penetrated  to  the  heart  of  the  Scriptures  and 
dealt  with  the  changeless  spiritual  laws  or  principles 
in  which  real  religion  has  its  basis.  With  the  out- 
ward, the  incidental,  the  temporary,  he  did  not  greatly 
concern  himself.  He  was  as  little  of  a  zealot  as  he 
was  of  a  revolutionary.  He  neither  sided  with  the 
technically  religious  or  orthodox  Pharisees,  nor  did  he 
attack  the  law  because  of  the  perversions  and  super- 
ficial interpretations  of  it  which  were  current.  His 
method  was  that  of  penetrating  to  the  real  essence 
of  the  law;  it  was  the  method  of  comprehension  by 
which  he  was  able  to  grasp  into  the  unity  of  a  great 
spiritual  principle  the  essence  of  all  commandments, 
as  when  he  taught  that  love  to  God  and  man  is  the 
substance  of  all  that  the  law  and  the  prophets 
contained.^ 

Let  us  observe  the  method  of  Jesus  in  dealing  with 
certain  usages  and  institutions  of  Judaism.  Fre- 
quent fasting  was  a  religious  custom  which  was 
greatly  emphasized  in  the  time  of  Jesus.^     It  was 

1  Matt.  22 :  37-40. 

2  The  Old  Testament  prescribed  but  one  fast,  that  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  16:29).    Possibly  a  later  insti- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  61 

one  of  the  marks  of  a  zealous  piety .^  Jesus  did  not 
adopt  it  or  encourage  his  disciples  to  do  so.^  When 
asked  his  reason  for  not  doing  so,  his  reply,  in  sub- 
stance, was,  that  fasting  was  only  appropriate  in  times 
of  special  bereavement  and  sorrow,  that  during  the 
joyful  days  of  his  presence  with  his  disciples  there 
would  be  no  fitness  in  fasting.^  The  parabolic  sayings 
which  follow  about  the  piece  of  new  cloth  and  the  new 
wine  clearly  set  forth  the  principle  that  what  he 
sought  to  quicken  in  men  was  a  new,  free,  spiritual 
life  upon  which  the  burden  of  a  round  of  outward 
observances  was  not  to  be  imposed.  Jesus  neither 
forbids  nor  enjoins  fasting.  He  insists  that,  if  prac- 
tised, it  shall  have  a  real  meaning ;  it  shall  not  be  a 
mere  ceremony,  but  a  "  fasting  unto  God,"  *  an  expres- 
sion of  real  contrition  in  the  sight  of  God.^ 

What  was  Jesus'  attitude  toward  the  sacrificial  sys-  Thesacri- 
tem  which  was  the  central  feature  of  the  Jewish  ritual  ? 
On  the  one  hand,  he  is  represented  as  attending  the 
feasts  in  connection  with  which  sacrifices  were  offered ;  ® 
had  he  not  been  present  at  the  sacrificial  worship  he 
would  have  given  great  offence,  and  the  fact  must  have 
left  some  trace  of  itself  on  the  pages  of  the  New  Testar 
ment.^  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  not  represented  as 
himself  bringing  offerings  to  the  temple,  and  but  once 
as  counselling  it  in  the  case  of  others.®    In  this  in- 


tuted  fast  is  referred  to  in  Est.  4 : 3,  16.  Jesus  may  have 
observed  the  regular  fasts. 

i"I  fast  twice  in  the  week"  (Lk.  18:12).  See  article, 
"Fasting  "  in  Hastings'  B.  D.;  Stapfer,  Palestine,  pp.  379-382. 

a  Mk.  2  :  18. 

«  Mk.  2: 19  ;  Matt.  9: 15  ;  Lk.  5: 34. 

*  Zech.  7:5.  *  Matt.  6 :  16-18. 

•Lk.22:l;  Jn.4:45;  5:1;6:4;7:2,8;11:56;  13:1,29. 

f  See  Weiss,  Life  of  Chnst,  II,  166,  166. 

8  Mk.  1 : 44  :  Matt.  8:4;  Lk.  5 :  14. 


ficial 
system. 


52 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


"  Mercy  and 
not  sacri- 


The  under- 
lying 
principle. 


stance,  —  in  connection  with  the  healing  of  a  leper,  — 
the  interest  of  Jesus  in  the  matter  seemed  to  centre 
in  the  procuring  by  the  man  of  a  certificate  of  cleans- 
ing for  which  the  sacrifice  was  necessary.  "  Offer  the 
necessary  sacrifice  in  order  that  you  may  be  certified 
by  the  priest  and  accepted  by  the  people  as  really 
clean "  —  seems  to  represent  the  real  emphasis  of 
Jesus'  words. 

In  any  case  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  laid  no  stress 
upon  sacrificial  rites,  else  he  could  not  have  been  so 
silent  on  the  subject.  He  echoed  the  teaching  of  the 
prophets,  "  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,"  *  and 
declared  that  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart  and  one's 
neighbor  as  himself  "is  much  more  than  all  whole 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices."  ^  In  the  same  spirit  he 
counselled  that  a  man  who,  in  the  very  act  of  offering 
a  sacrifice,  remembered  that  he  had  wronged  a  fellow- 
man,  should  leave  his  gift  to  God  unoffered  and  go 
and  right  the  wrong.' 

Scanty  as  these  references  are,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  respecting  the  attitude  of  mind  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  them.  Jesus  did  not  oppose  the  temple 
ritual,  but  he  took  little  interest  in  it.  He  resented, 
indeed,  the  profanation  of  the  temple,  but  it  was  upon 
the  temple  as  a  house  of  prayer,  rather  than  as  a  seat 
of  sacrifice,  that  his  zeal  was  concentrated.  The 
world  in  which  he  lived  and  that  of  Jewish  ceremo- 
nialism scarcely  touched  each  other.  The  words  which 
represented  the  religious  ideals  of  his  age  were  such 
as  sacrifice,  fasting,  tithes,  and  almsgiving,  while  his 
were  judgment,  mercy,  and  the  love  of  God,^  and  after 
surveying  the  painstaking  piety  of  his  contemporaries 
and  their  zeal  in  legal  obedience,  he  said  plainly  to  his 


1  Matt.  9 :  13  ;  12 :  7.     Cf.  Hos.  6:6;  Mic.  6 :  6-8. 

2  Mk.  12  :  33.  »  Matt.  6 :  23,  24.  *  Lk.  11 :  42. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  53 

disciples,  "Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  ^ 

Regarding  the  law  of  clean  and  unclean,  Jesus  took  The  law  of 
up  a  more  positive  attitude.  He  declared  that  "  there  ^^®*°  ^'^^ 
is  nothing  from  without  the  man  that  going  into  him 
can  defile  him."  ^  Is  this  only  a  rejection  of  "  the 
tradition  of  the  elders"^  —  "the  human  statutes  with 
which  the  law  had  been  enlarged  by  Pharisaic  learn- 
ing "  ?  *  The  maxim  seems  to  me  to  have  a  wider 
sweep  than  this  view  admits.  It  was  so  understood 
by  Mark,  who  adds :  "  TJiis  he  said,  making  all  meats 
clean."*  The  language  of  Jesus,  while  finding  its 
occasion  in  the  popular  refinements  of  Leviticalism, 
was  quite  unqualified.  It  cannot  mean  less  than  that 
the  Mosaic  law  of  purification  is  a  matter  of  moral 
indifference.  The  law  had  prescribed  in  detail  what 
foods,  if  eaten,  defiled  a  man ;  Jesus  refuses  to  recog- 
nize the  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean,  except  in 
the  ethical  sphere.  Logically  his  principle  under- 
mines the  whole  system  of  ceremonial  defilement.* 

The  sabbath  was  the  institution  which  the  Jews  of  The  sab- 
Jesus'  time  had  safeguarded  with  the  most  minute  Jjestion. 
and  stringent  rules.  The  ordinances  of  the  Penta- 
teuch' were  not  wanting  in  strictness  or  detail,  but 
the  doctors  of  the  law  had  developed  upon  the  basis 
of  these  an  elaborate  system  of  distinctions,  exactions, 
and  prohibitions.*  Early  in  his  ministry  Jesus  en- 
countered the  criticism  of  his  contemporaries  by  per- 
mitting his  disciples  to  violate  one  of  the  conventional 

1  Matt.  5 :  20.  2  Mk.  7:15.  »  Matt.  7  : 4. 

*  Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  II,  167.  *  Mk.  7  :  19. 

«  Cf.  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  Ood,  pp.  69,  70. 
'Ex.    20:8-11;     23:12;     31:12-17;     34:21;     35:1-3; 
Deut.  5  :  12-15. 

«  See  Stapfer,  Palestine,  pp.  350-357. 


64 


TEE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  scope 
of  the 

principle  of 
Jesus. 


The  prin- 
ciple of 
fulfilment. 


rules  governing  sabbath  observance.^  In  his  reply  he 
appealed,  at  first,  to  precedent  —  the  liberty  exercised 
by  David  in  eating  bread  which  the  law  permitted 
only  the  priests  to  eat  —  and  then  to  the  principle 
that  the  sabbath  was  not  an  end,  but  a  means  to  an 
end.  That  end  is  man  —  his  real  interests  and  needs.^ 
He  repudiates  all  rules  which  place  the  sabbath  above 
human  interests  or  make  it  a  hindrance,  rather  than  a 
help,  to  their  promotion. 

It  is  evident  that  in  his  reply  Jesus  meant  to  repu- 
diate those  refinements  which  had  been  developed  on 
the  basis  of  the  law,  and  to  show  that  he  and  his  dis- 
ciples were  not  really  sabbath-breakers.  But  does 
not  the  principle  which  he  announced  reach  farther 
than  this?  The  maxims,  "It  is  permitted  to  do 
good  on  the  sabbath  day,"  ^  and :  "  The  sabbath  was 
made  on  man's  account,  and  not  man  on  the  sabbath's 
account,"  *  have  quite  a  different  tone  from  this : 
"Whosoever  doeth  any  work  therein  [i.e.  on  the 
sabbath]  shall  be  put  to  death.  Ye  shall  kindle  no 
fire  throughout  your  habitations  up^n  the  sabbath 
day."  *  Who  can  believe  that  Jestis  would  have 
sanctioned  the  stoning  to  death  of  a  man  for  gath- 
ering sticks  to  make  a  fire  on  the  sabbath  day  ?  ^ 
One  thing  is  certain :  if  such  methods  of  securing  to 
men  a  day  of  rest  and  worship  were  not  adapted  to 
promote  the  true  good  of  mankind,  they  are  excluded 
by  the  principle  of  Jesus.  Upon  this  concrete  ques- 
tion our  Lord  did  not  pronounce.  He  did,  however, 
propound  the  test  of  all  sabbath  rules  and  usages, 
even  of  those  contained  in  the  Old  Testament. 

How,  then,  shall  we  define  the  attitude  toward 
the  Old  Testament  which  these  examples  illustrate  ? 

1  Mk.  2  :  23  ff.  ;  Matt.  12  : 1  ff.  ;  Lk.  6  : 1  ff. 

a  Mk.  2  :  27.  »  Matt.  12  :  12.  *  Mk.  2  :  27. 

6  Ex.  35 : 2,  3.  «  Num.  16  :  32-36. 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  65 

What  principle  is  adequate  to  cover  both  his  conser- 
vative and  his  independent  handling  of  Old  Testament 
rules  and  maxims  ?  The  answer  is :  His  own  princi- 
ple of  fulfilment  —  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy 
the  law  or  the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil."  ^  Jesus  did  not  intend  to  discard  the  Jewish 
system  and  to  begin  de  novo.  He  would  build  upon 
its  essential  substance  of  truth.  He  foresaw  the 
danger  that  many  would  regard  his  independence  as 
involving  a  complete  break  with  Judaism.  Against 
this  radical  interpretation  of  his  mission  he  sought  to 
guard.  Nothing  in  the  law  is  to  be  thrown  away  as 
worthless  and  useless.  The  true  spiritual  meaning 
and  use  of  its  various  requirements  and  institutions 
are  rather  to  be  developed  and  enforced.  Not  a  jot 
or  a  tittle  shall  fail  of  its  fulfilment  in  the  teaching 
and  work  of  the  Messiah. 

Several  additional  examples  of  our  Lord's  method  Examples  of 
of  fulfilling  the  law  in  his  teaching  have  been  pre-  ^uge?.*^*' 
served  to  us :  "  It  was  said  to  them  of  old  time,  Thou 
shalt  not  kill ;  but  I  say  unto  you  that  whosoever  is 
angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judg- 
ment," ^  etc.     The  law  forbade  the  overt  act  of  mur- 
der ;  Jesus,  penetrating  to  the  world  of  motives,  out 
of  which  all  overt  acts  spring,  forbids  the  indulgence 
of  the  passion  which  is  the  fruitful  source  of  murder,  impure 
In  like  manner  the  law  forbade  adultery ;  Jesus  for-  ^®^^'^®- 
bids  the  impure  desire.'     The  law  emphasized  the  Oaths, 
sanctity  of  oaths;   Jesus  declares  that  one's  simple 
word  should  be  as  sacred  and  inviolable  as  the  most 
solemn  pledge.*    The  law  sanctioned  retaliation  —  the  Prohibition 
payment  of  penalty  in  kind  —  in  its  maxims,  "An  eye  ^  revenge, 
for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth  " ;  Jesus  discounte-  The  law  of 
nances  revenge  altogether,  enjoining  upon  his  disci-    °^®' 

1  Matt.  5:17.  •  Matt.  5  :  27  ff. 

2  Matt.  6 :  21,  22.  *  Matt.  6  :  33  ff. 


56  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

pies  the  patient  endurance  of  injury  rather  than  its 
requital.^  The  law  required  men  to  love  their  neighs 
bors ;  and  while  it  did  not  add,  "  and  hate  their  ene-l 
finies,"  still,  the  tendency  of  certain  texts  ^  was  to  f  osten 
|a  strong  aversion  to  non-Jews.  Jesus,  however,  en- 
joins universal  love.  Such  love  alone  is  Godlike,  fbr 
God  blesses  all,  even  the  worst  of  men.  Only  by  the 
possession  and  exercise  of  this  love  can  men  become 
the  sons  of  their  Father  in  heaven.  Hence  he  com- 
mands his  disciples  not  to  be  grudging  and  partial  in 
their  benevolence,  —  making  their  love  only  a  mitigated 
selfishness,  —  but  to  be  complete,  impartial,  and  gen- 
erous in  their  love,  as  God  is  in  his,  thereby  proving 
themselves  to  be  morally  kindred  to  him  in  spirit  and 
action.^  One  of  Jesus'  most  striking  parables,  —  that' 
of  the  Good  Samaritan,*  —  is  designed  to  illustrate  and 
enforce  the  same  truth. 
The  mean-  Thus  Jesus'  fulfilment  of  the  Jewish  law  meant 
filment'^^"  ^^^  development  of  its  ideal  contents,  the  realization 
in  his  own  teaching  and  life  of  the  essential  spiritual 
principles  which  underlay  the  Mosaic  legislation.  This 
legislation  was  a  partial  and  temporary  reproduction 
of  those  changeless  laws  and  truths  which  constituted 
the  spiritual  instruction  of  Christ.^    In  the  process  of 

1  Matt.  5 :  38  fE. 

2  Lev.  19: 18,  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  any  grudge  against  the 
children  of  thy  peopW'' ;  Ex.  23  :  22,  "I  will  be  an  enemy  unto 
thine  enemies,"  etc.  The  popular  conception  of  Israel's  elec- 
tion and  of  his  security  in  the  favor  of  God  which  was  current 
in  late  Judaism  powerfully  contributed  to  the  idea  that  "neigh- 

'  bor"  meant  fellow-Jew,  and  that  love  to  one's  neighbors  meant, 
hatred  toward  one's  enemies. 
^    8  Matt.  5  :  43  ff.  4  Lk.  10 :  30-37. 

6  Hence  his  fulfilment  of  the  law  was  something  more  than 
the  personal  realization  of  the  Old  Testament's  moral  ideal,  the 
perfect  revelation  of   God's  righteousness,  as  maintained  by 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  67 

educing  its  permanent  spiritual  contents,  therefore,  all' 
that  was  provisional  would  fall  away,  —  not  by  being  • 
destroyed,  but  by  being  fulfilled.  Everything  that  was 
of  permanent  validity  was  conserved ;  that  which  was " 
specifically  Jewish,  and  so  fitted  only  for  a  limited  and 
temporary  use,  fell  away,  as  the  blossom  falls  away^ 
when  it  is  fulfilled  in  the  fruit. 

How  completely  did  the  interest  of  Jesus  centre  in  The  kernel 
the  inner  and  deeper  meanings  of  things.     Not  the  Jl^g^  ® 
husk,  but  the  kernel,  was  that  for  which  he  cared. 
What  slight  regard  did  he  show  to  the  whole  ceremo- 
nial system  of  his  people.     He  looked  upon  it  as  al 
husk,  containing,  indeed,  great  abiding  truths,  but  it-  . 
self  destined  to  pass  away  as  its  inner  meaning  became 
known  and  effective  through  his  work. 

We  shall  have  frequent  occasion  in  the  ensuing  study  How  Jesus 
to  observe  how  Jesus  penetrated  to  the  deeper  meaning  the"law. 

tof  Old  Testament  conceptions,  such  as  the  fatherhood! 
of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  current  form  inj 
which  these  ideas  were  conceived  constituted  at  once 
his  point  of  contact  and  his  point  of  departure.  He 
made  use  of  the  prevailing  modes  of  speech  and  of 
thought,  but  in  his  use  of  them  he  enlarged,  deepened, 
and  spiritualized  them,  and  thus  delivered  the  essen- 
tial truths  expressed  in  them  from  the  limitations  in 
which  they  had  been  apprehended,  and  clothed  them 
in  forms  universally  valid. 


Thz      Ki'-n.^d^'*"    ^    fc^ 


CHAPTER  V 


THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD 


Jesus  began  the  proclamation  of  his  gospel  by  say- 
ing :  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
at  hand."  ^   The  idea  of  the  kingdom,  therefore,  occu- 
pied a  primary  place  in  his  thoughts  and  plans,  and 
may  justly  be  regarded  as  the  dominant  note  of  his 
teaching.     It  is  an  idea  which  Jesus  was  always  em- 
phasizing and  illustrating  in  its  various  phases  and 
(applications.    That  men  should  recognize  God  in  their  ] 
I  life,  that  they  should  live  in  accord  with  his  truth  ^* 
'and  law,  was  the  first  concern  of  Jesus.     The  alterna-l 
tive  term,  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  which  Matthew  em- 
ploys,^ embodies,   generically,   the  same  idea.     Thel 
kingdom  is  heavenly,  that  is,  divine  in  origin  and) 

1  General  Eeferences :  Candlish,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  Bib- 
lically  and  Historically  considered ;  Mathews,  The  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  ch.  iii ;  Kidd,  Morality  and  Religion,  Lect. 
VIII ;  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  ch.  viii ;  Horton,  Teaching 
of  Jesus,  ch.  i ;  Krop,  La  Pensee  de  Jesus  sur  le  Boyaume  de 
Dieu ;  Seeley,  Ecce  Homo,  chs.  iii,  iv ;  Harnack,  Das  Wesen 
des  Christentums,  pp.  34-40 ;  treatises  (in  German)  by  Issel, 
SchuioUer,  J.  Weiss,  Titius,  Ltitgert ;  see  also  the  general  litera- 
ture cited  under  Ch.  IV. 

2  Mk.  1 :  15. 

8  The  title  occurs  thirty-two  times  in  Matthew,  not  at  all  in 
the  other  two  Synoptics.  "Kingdom  of  God"  is  found,  how- 
ever, in  Matt.  12  :  28  and  21 :  31,  43.  Some  account  for  the  phrase 
by  referring  to  the  fact  that  "Heaven"  was  a  common  Jewish 
metonymy  for  "God"  (so  Schtirer,  Wendt,  Sanday,  Dalman)  ; 
but  it  is  quite  as  likely  that  tup  oipavQv  is  simply  the  genitive 
of  origin. 

58 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  59 

(character.     Its  law  is  the  will  of  Godj  it  is  the  reign 
[of  heavenly  principles  and  laws. 

The  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  a  prominent  Old  Testa- 
one  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  late  Judaism.  ^ThV^^^ 
The  Jews  regarded  their  own  state  as  a  kingdom  of  kingdom  of 
God,  a  theocracy.     The  most  distinguishing  peculi-        ' 
arity  of  Jewish  religious  thought  was  that  the  people 
considered  Jehovah  to  be  their  king,  and  contemplated 
bheir  whole  system  of  laws  and  iustitutions  as  the 
direct  expression  of  his  will.     They  regarded  their 
rulers  and  magistrates  as  Jehovah's  vicegerents,  the 
human  instruments  by  which  his  will  was  to  be  exe- 
cuted in  the  nation.      The  judges  and  kings  of  Israel 
were  the  "  sons  of  God "  in  a  preeminent  sense,^  the 
objects  of  Jehovah's  special  care  and  favor.     It  was 
natural  that,  where  such  ideas  were  current  and  power- 
ful, the  ideal  of  society  should  be  conceived  under  the 
form  of  a  kingdom  or  rule  of  God. 

Other  circumstances  contributed  to  the  same  result.  The 
The  oppression  which  the  Jewish  people  suffered  at  oppression' 
the  hands  of  other  nations,  especially  their  experience  on  the  idea, 
under  the  Syrian  and  Eoman  dominations,  tended  to 
make  the  idea  of  a  divine  kingdom  living  and  effec- 
tive in  Israel.     When  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  spoke 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  thought  of  a  world-power 
which  should  throw  off  the  hated  yoke  of  the  Eoman 
oppression.     Visions  of  this  coming  glorious  day  for 
Israel  constitute  the   substance  of    the   apocalyptic 
writings  of  the  later  Jewish  period.^    In  the  later 
prophecies  this  idea  of  the  kingdom  is  predominant. 
"  In  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven 
set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  nor 

12  Sam.  7:14;  Ps.  2:7:  82:6,  7;  89:27. 

2  See  article,  *' Apocalyptic  Literature,"  by  Charles,  in  Hast- 
ings' B.  D. ;  Bousset,  op.  cit. ;  Stanton,  Jewish  and  Christian 
Messiah,  passim. 


60 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Popular 
Jewish  ideas 
of  the 
kingdom. 


Jesus'  view 
contrasted 
with  the 
popular 
idea. 


[shall  the  sovereignty  thereof  be  left  to  another  peo- 
ple ;  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these 

(kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever."  ^ 

It  is  obvious,  alike  from  the  Old  Testament,  from 
the  late  Jewish  writings,  and  from  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  Jews  conceived  of  the  kingdom  as  an  out- 

jward  national  organization  —  a  world-empire  having 
its  centre  in  Jerusalem  and  having  as  its  head  the 

(long-expected  Messiah.  Another  current  idea  con- 
cerning the  coming  kingdom  was  that  it  was  to  be 
introduced  by  a  startling  catastrophe,  a  signal  inter- 
vention of  God  in  human  history.  The  victorious 
{Messiah  should  suddenly  appear,  beat  down  his  ene- 
mies, and  establish  his  throne  in  power  and  splendor. 
To  this  idea  a  literal  interpretation  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy,  combined  with  the  keen  sense  of  the  injus- 
tice of  the  persecutions  which  the  people  were  suffering, 

ipowerfully  contributed.     The  kingdom  of  the  apoca- 

flyptic  books  is  a  world-empire,  greater  than  Kome,  to 

fbe  suddenly  and  miraculously  established.^ 

Jesus'  view  of  the  kingdom  presents  a  sharp  con- 
trast to  this  popular  idea.    The  nature  of  the  kingdom 

jas  a  spiritual  society  —  as  composed  of  those  who  pos- 
sess certain  qualities  of  mind  and  heart  —  is  clearly 
indicated  in  Jesus'  statements  of  the  terms  on  which 
men  may  become  members  of  it.  .  All  the  conditions 
of  participating  in  his  kingdom  which  he  describes  are 
spiritual.  The  Beatitudes  are  the  classic  illustrations ; 
those  who  are  poor  in  spirit,  the  meek,  the  peacemakers, 
those  who  seek  after  righteousness,  are  the  ones  who 
are  prepared  for  his  kingdom,  and  to  whom  it  is  prom- 


1  Dan.  2  :  44. 

2  On  the  popular  ideas  of  the  Jews  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God,  see  Ch,  I.  The  subject  is  fully  discussed  by  Balden- 
sperger  in  Pt.  I  of  his  Selbsthewusstsein  Jesu. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  \s^c4.|f  ^f^S*^' 

ised.^  Not  with  observation,  he  said,  would  his  king- 
dom come.''  The  kingdom  is  already  present  in  the 
midst  of  you.^  The  condition  for  entering  it  is  the 
possession  of  the  child-spirit.*  He  will  have  the  high- 
est place  in  this  spiritual  empire  who  serves  most.* 
He  that  humbleth  himself  to  the  life  of  sacrifice  and 
helpfulness  shall  be  most  highly  exalted  in  the  king- 
dom of  God.« 

In  these  characteristics  of  our  Lord's  teaching  we  Reason  for 
readily  discover  the  reason  why  his  first  disciples  were  cj'pi^s'^jis. 
perplexed  and  disappointed  at  his  failure,  as  they  appoint- 
thought,  to  inaugurate  the  Messianic  reign.  Between  "^®'^** 
their  conception  of  the  nature  and  coming  of  the  king- 
dom and  the  idea  of  Jesus  the  difference  was  deep  and 
wide.  They  dreamed  of  places  of  honor  and  power  in 
a  world-empire.'  They  discussed  the  question  who 
should  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom.*  They 
thought,  after  the  resurrection,  that  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  had  been  too  long  delayed,  and 
eagerly  asked:  "Dost  thou  at  this  time  restore  the 
kingdom  to  Israel?"^  Jesus  had  done  few  of  the 
things  which  they  expected  to  see  done.  He  had 
made  but  a  sparing  use  of  miracujous  power.  He  had 
furnished  no  startling  demonstrations  such  as  those 
who  asked  for  signs  ^^  desired ;  he  had  thrown  himself 
from  no  pinnacle  and  had  fallen  down  to  no  world- 
power,  as  he  had  been  tempted  to  do  at  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry ; "  he  had  refused  to  give  any  sign 
except  the  Jonah-sign  —  the  teaching  of  his  heavenly 
truth.^ 

There  was  thus  a  distinctively  new  note  in  Jesus' 
teaching  concerning  his  kingdom.    It  was  new  cloth 

1  Matt.  5 :  3-12.  »  Matt.  20 :  26.  »  Acts  1 : 6. 

a  Lk.  17  :  20.  •  Matt.  18  :  4.  w  1  Cor.  1 :  22. 

»  Lk.  17 :  21.  '  Matt.  20 :  20  ff.  "  Matt.  4  :  5,  9. 

*  Matt.  18 :  3.  •  Matt.  18 : 1.  "  Lk.  11 :  29-32. 


62 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


and  could  not  be  stitched  upon  the  old  garment  of 
Judaism ;  it  was  new  wine  and  must  not  be  put  into 
old  wine-skins.^  There  had,  indeed,  been  a  kingdom 
of  God  in  the  world  before  his  coming,  but  it  was  rudi- 
mentary, limited,  provisional,  and  national  in  form. 
In  an  important  sense  the  kingdom  of  God  came  with 
his  coming.  Hence,  at  the  beginning  of  his  work,  he 
announces  its  approach.'^  He  proclaims  the  conditions 
on  which  men  may  enter  it.^  Not  citizenship  in  the 
Jewish  nation,  not  the  performance  of  ceremonial 
rites,  but  the  possession  of  certain  states  of  mind,  the 
fulfilment  of  certain  moral  conditions,  entitles  men  to 
Imembership  in  his  spiritual  empire. 

Another  characteristic  of  the  kingdom,  closely  con- 
nected with  the  foregoing,  is  that  it  is  universal.  Being 
a  moral  and  spiritual  affair,  it  follows  that  it  is  for  all 
men,  irrespective  of  nationality  or  outward  condition. 
It  is,  of  course,  true  that  Jesus  came  to  the  Jewish 
people  and  offered  himself  to  them  as  their  Messiah.'* 
He  always  recognized  the  historic  and  economic  con- 
nection of  his  work  with  the  Jewish  religion  and 
nation.  This  thought  is  expressed  in  the  saying, 
"  The  [Messianic]  salvation  is  from  the  Jews."  ^  The 
Jews  were,  therefore,  the  natural  "  sons  of  the  king- 
dom"^; and  yet,  he  told  them  that,  unless  they  ful- 
filled the  conditions  in  heart  and  life  which  were 
necessary  to  participation  in  his  spiritual  common- 
wealth, they  should  be  "cast  forth  into  the  outer 
darkness,"  ^  and  added  that  the  "  kingdom  should  be 
taken  away  from  them,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof.''  ^ 

Still  another  note  of  the  kingdom  is  this :  it  is  a 
growing  affair.     The  kingdom  is  frequently  likened  to 


1  Mk.  2 :  21,  22. 
2Mk.  1:15. 
»Matt.  6:20. 


*Matt.  15:24;  Jn.  1:11. 
6  Jn.  4 :  22. 
«  Matt.  8 :  12. 


7  Ibid. 

8  Matt.  21 :  13. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  63 

something  that  is  alive.  It  is  like  the  mysteriously- 
growing  grain  ;^  like  the  small  mustard  seed  which 
develops  at  last  into  a  great  plant  ;^  like  the  leaven 
spreading  in  meal,  "  until  it  was  all  leavened."  *  The 
law  of  the  kingdom  is,  "  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear, 
then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  *  Its  coming  is  subject 
to  the  law  of  historic  development.  Israel's  history 
had  been  a  preparation  for  it ;  the  Messiah's  work  on 
earth  especially  marked  its  establishment  in  its  true 
meaning  and  distinctive  nature ;  but  it  is  to  continue 
to  come  in  the  world  through  the  increasing  obedience 
of  men  to  God  until  his  saving  purpose  for  mankind 
shall  be  realized.  Alike  in  extension  and  in  intention 
it  is  to  go  on  developing  in  greater  and  greater  power.* 

We  have  followed  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  What  the 
kingdom  far  enough  already  to  see  that  it  is  plainly  notf  ^™ 
distinguished  from  certain  rival  conceptions.  It  is 
-neither  synonymous  with  the  Jewish  theocracy,  nor 
:with  the  world-empire  described  in  the  apocalyptic 
%ooks,  nor  with  any  specific  church  or  group  of 
Ichurches.  The  conditions  of  membership  and  leader- 
ship in  it  are,  in  a  great  measure,  different  from  those 
which  the  various  churches  of  Christendom  have  pre- 
scribed. It  is  too  large,  too  comprehensive,  too  spir- 
itual a  society  to  coincide  with  any  actual  variety  of 
church.  However  greatly  different  churches,  or  the 
universal  Church  collectively  considered,  may  aid  the 
[progress  of  the  kingdom,  it  is  more  and  greater  than 
pny  visible,^  outward  organization. 

There   are  three  questions   which  are  frequently  rHgpnted 
asked  and  energetically  discussed  among  students  of  questions. 

1  Mk.  4  :  26  ff.  »  Matt.  13 :  33. 

«  Matt.  13:31,  32.  *Mk.4:28. 

»  The  parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed  (Matt.  13 :  31,  32)  illua- 
trates  the  extensive,  that  of  the  Leaven  (Matt.  13 :  33)  the  intenn 
sive,  aspect  of  th,e  kingdom's  growth. 


64 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God. 
They  are:  (1)  Does  "kingdom"  mean  reign,  do- 
minion, or  does  it  mean  the  sphere  within  which 
God  rules  ?  (2)  Does  Jesus  conceive  the  kingdom  as 
already  present,  or  as  future  ?  (3)  Is  the  kingdom 
regarded  as  a  heavenly  gift  to  men  or  as  a  moral  task 
to  be  achieved  by  them  ?  ^ 

It  is  certain  that  the  kingdom  is  presented  in  the 
Gospels  as  something  inward  or  spiritual.  The  classic 
passage  expressive  of  this  idea  is :  "  And  being  asked 
by  the  Pharisees,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh, 
he  answered  them  and  said,  The  kingdom  of  God  com- 
eth not  with  observation :  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo, 
here !  or.  There !  for  lo,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you''  (or  in  the  midst  of  you).^  Jesus  is  here  con- 
trasting his  kingdom  with  the  apocalyptic  and  catas- 
trophic kingdom  of  popular  expectation.  Its  coming 
is  analogous  to  the  silent  processes  of  nature.  The 
implication  is  that  the  sphere  of  its  coming  and  mani- 
festation is  that  of  the  inner  spiritual  life.  Especially 
clear  is  this  if  the  meaning  of  Ivto';  vixdv  is :  "  within 
you."^  The  conditions  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
kre  spiritual.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  men,  in 
the  sense  that  its  law  is  a  law  of  the  inner  life;  its 
fprinciple  is  obedience  to  God. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  kingdom  has  no  out- 
ward or  visible  aspect.  In  his  work  as  Founder  of  the 
kingdom  Jesus  took  steps  to  create  a  society  which 


1  The  Germans  express  this  question  by  a  play  on  words : 
Is  the  kingdom  a  Gabe  or  an  Aiifyahe  ? 

2Lk.  17:20,  21. 

8  The  meaning  more  commonly  assigned  to  it  by  modern 
interpreters  is,  "  in  the  midst  of  you,"  on  the  ground  that  Jesus 
was  speaking  to  the  Pharisees,  in  whom  he  could  not  say  that 
his  kingdom  dwelt.  But  it  is  possible  that  "  you  "  (v/itDj/)  might 
have  been  geuerically  used. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  65 

should  be  the  outward  expression  of  the  rule  of  God 
in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men.  No  organized  soci- 
ety—  considering  human  imperfections  —  could  corre- 
spond perfectly  to  the  kingdom  or  fully  express  its 
nature.  The  kingdom  will  always  remain  more  and 
greater  than  any  and  all  Christian  institutions.  But 
the  law  of  the  kingdom  is  the  law  of  expression ;  it 
will  tend  to  embody  itself  in  outward  forms  which  it 
will  use  for  its  ends.  These  will  be  approximate 
realizations  of  its  ideal  in  the  varied  social  relation- 
ships and  activities  of  human  life.  Primarily,  the 
kingdom  is  the  rule  of  God  in  human  hearts  and  lives, 
but  this  more  active  and  inward  aspect  of  the  kingdom 
implies  the  more  outward  aspect  as  its  counterpart  and 
result.  Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  facts  of  life  which 
Jesus  covered  by  the  ptoase  in  question  can  be  stated 
rin  a  variety  of  forms.  The  kingdom  may  be  called  a 
society  —  a  certain,  though  unknown,  number  of  per- 
sons; or  it  may  be  regarded  from  the  standpoint  of 
its  principles,  its  law.  In  that  aspect  we  may  prop- 
erly speak  of  the  rule  or  kingdom  as  within  men  and 
(as  synonymous  with  its  "  invisible  laws."  ^ 

Did  Jesus  conceive  his  kingdom  as  already  present  Presenter 
in  the  world,  or  as  a  consummation  to  be  realized  in    '^^^^®* 
the  future  ?  ^    I  should  answer  the  question  by  saying 
that  both  aspects  are  emphasized  in  the  teaching  of 


1  So  Sanday^  Hastings'  B.  2>.,  II,  620.     Cf.  Rom.  14 :  17. 

2  Among  those  who  regard  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  as  pre- 
dominantly an  eschatological  conception  are  :  Meyer,  SchmoUer, 
Issel,  J.  Weiss,  and  Kaftan.  Its  presence  here  and  now  is 
maintained  by  Ritschl,  Wendt,  Bruce,  Mathews  (Social  Teach- 
ing, p.  51),  Orr  (article,  "  Kin<:dora  of  God,"  in  IIa.stings'  B.  D.), 
and  Bousset  (see  especially  Jesu  Predict,  pp.  99,  100).  Cf.  my 
Theology  of  the  N.  T.,  pp.  37-40,  and  the  admirable  remarks 
of  Professor  Peabody  in  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question^ 
pp.  91-104,  and  the  various  opinions  there  cited. 

r 


66 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  future 
coming  of 
the  kiug- 
dom. 


Reconcilia- 
tion of  the 
present  and 
future 
aspects. 


Jesus.^  The  kingdom  is  declared  to  be  at  hand ;  ^  is 
said  to  have  come  to  or  upon  those  to  whom  Jesus 
spoke  ^  and  is  represented  as  being  within  (or  among) 
the  people  of  his  time.*  Jesus  compared  the  least 
member  of  the  kingdom  with  John  the  Baptist,*^  ex- 
horted men  to  seek  his  kingdom,^  and  spoke  of  persons 
who  were  entering  it  at  the  time.^  Moreover,  the  para- 
bles of  the  Sower,  the  Tares,  the  Mustard  Seed  and  the 
Leaven  all  assume  that  the  kingdom  is  a  present  real- 
ity whose  actual  method  of  growth  Jesus  is  illustrating 
by  natural  analogies. 

But  Jesus  is  also  represented  as  speaking  of  the 
jkingdom  as  future.  Within  the  lifetime  of  the  gener- 
■^ation  then  living  it  will  come  in  power.^  There  is  no 
doubt  that  our  Synoptic  tradition  associates  the  coming 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  a  special  manner  with  the 
"  coming  "  or  "  parousia  "  of  Christ  which  is  described 
in  the  great  eschatological  discourse.^  What  the  nature 
of  that  coming  of  Christ  in  his  kingdom  is  we  shall 
have  to  consider  hereafter.  It  is  enough  to  notice  here 
that  a  future  coming  of  the  kingdom  is  recognized. 
I  The  difficulties  which  this  twofold  representation 
|raay  seem  to  occasion  are  resolved  by  remembering 
Ihat  for  Jesus  the  kingdom  was  a  comprehensive  idea. 
Its  growth  should  be  a  great  historic  process,  marked, 
however,  by  special  epochs,  such  as  his  coming  in  his 
glory  which  some  of  his  disciples  should  live  to  wit- 
ness. The  kingdom  was  both  present  and  future.  In 
its  beginnings  it  was  really  present ;  the  "  blade  "  had 
appeared;   but  the    development  of  the  "ear"  and 


1  Cf.  Sanday,  in  Hastings'  B.  D.,  II,  620. 

2  Matt.  9  : 1  (m^Keu).  *  Lk.  17 :  21.        6  Matt.  6  :  33. 
'«  Mk.  1 :  15.  6  Matt.  11 :  11. 

'Matt.  20:31;  23:  13. 

8  Mk.  9 : 1.     Cf.  14  :  62  ;  Matt.  26 :  64  ;  Lk.  22 :  69. 

»  Mk.  13  ;  Matt.  24  ;  Lk.  21. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  67 

especially  of  "  the  full  corn  in  the  ear "  ^  was  yet 
future.  The  seed  had  been  planted,  the  leaven  depos- 
ited in  the  life  of  the  world ;  the  growth  of  the  great 
tree,  the  leavening  of  the  whole  lump,  would  be  the 
work  of  an  indefinite  period. 

Is  the  kingdom  a  gift  {Gdbe)  or  a  task  (Aufgabe) —  A  gift  or  a 
something  to  be  received  and  enjoyed,  or  something  to  *^^^^ 
be  done  or  achieved  ?  ^  The  question  draws  the  lines 
too  closely.  I  should  say  that  the  idea  that  the  king- 
dom is  a  heavenly  gift,  a  supernatural  boon  to  men, 
is  the  predominant  one.^  But  this  does  not  exclude 
the  element  of  human  effort  or  achievement  in  the 
realization  of  the  ends  of  the  kingdom.  God's  king- 
dom comes  in  and  through  the  doing,  by  men,  of  the 
will  of  God  on  earth.*  Every  gift  of  God  imposes  a 
task,  and  it  is  largely  a  question  of  words  whether 
that  comprehensive  name  for  God's  greatest  boon* 
shall  be  called  a  gift  or  a  task.  It  is  both.  Or,  if  one 
prefers,  it  is  a  gift  whose  appropriation  and  use  con- 
stitute man's  highest  life-task. 

What,  then,  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ?     How  shall  we  Definitions 
define  it  ?    Jesus  told  us  what  it  is  like  but  he  never  ?<Vhigdom 
defined  it.     Let  me  set  down  a  few  of  the  definitions  of  God." 
which  have  been  given  by  recent  writers.     Dr.  Hort 

I  defined  it  as  "  the  world  of  invisible  laws  by  which 
God  is  ruling  and  blessing  his  creatures."®    Professor 

1  Mk.  4  :  28 ;  Matt.  13  :  32,  33. 

*  The  former  view  has  been  emphasized  by  SchmoUer,  LUt- 
gert,  Bousset,  J.  Weiss,  and  Holtzmann  (see  his  Neutest.  Theolt 
I,  202)  ;  the  latter  by  Ritschl  ( Unterricht,  §  5)  and  Issel 
(Reich  Oottes,  p.  67  ff.). 

8  The  kingdom  "  comes  "  to  men  (Matt.  6  :  10  ;  10  : 7  ;  Lk.  11 : 2, 
20);  is  "given"  and  "received"  by  them  (Matt.  21:43; 
Mk.  10:15);  is  "prepared"  for  men  and  "inherited"  by 
them  (Matt.  25 :  34)  ;  but  it  is  also  the  object  of  search  and 
striving  (Matt.  6  :  33  ;  13  :  45).  *  Matt.  6  :  10. 

6  Matt.  13  :  44-46.  «  Life  and  Letters,  II,  273. 


68 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Essential 
oneness  of 
the  defini- 
tions. 


Sanday  approves  this  definition  as  the  best  one  known 
to  hiin\  Professor  Bruce  gave  this  definition :  "  The 
reign  of  divine  love  exercised  by  God  in  his  grace  over 
human  hearts  believing  in  his  love^  and  constrained 
thereby  to  yield  him  grateful  affection  and  devoted 
service."^  According  to  Professor  Wendt  the  char- 
acteristic note  of  the  kingdom  is  "  the  idea  of  a  divine 
(dispensation  under  which  God  would  bestow  his  full 
jsalvation  upon  a  society  of  men,  who,  on  their  part, 
(should  fulfil  his  will  in  true  righteousness."^  Pro- 
fessor Mathews  says,  "  By  the  kingdom  of  God  Jesus 
meant  an  ideal  (though  progressively  approximated) 
social  order  in  which  the  relation  of  men  to  God  is 
that  of  sons,  and  (therefore)  to  each  other,  that  of 
brothers."  *  Dr.  Horton  gives  a  less  formal  definition. 
,"The  idea"  (of  the  kingdom)  he  says,  "is  very  simple 
but  everything  is  involved  in  it.  The  sincere  and  prac- 
tical recognition  that  God  is  sovereign ;  the  complete 
*  inward  acceptance  of  his  sovereignty ;  the  mode  of  life 
which  results  from  this  recognition  and  this  accept- 
ance,—  that  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."* 

These  definitions  differ  but  little  in  their  substance. 
They  all  express  the  idea  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
comes  in  proportion  as  men  love,  obey,  and  serve  God. 
For  myself,  I  lay  no  stress  upon  the  importance  of  a 
formal  definition.  I  do  not  think  it  possible  to  do  full 
justice  to  every  aspect  of  so  comprehensive  a  concep- 
tion in  a  single  brief  formula.  No  form  of  words 
which  we  may  frame  can  better  express  its  meaning 
than  does  the  paraphrase  of  the  petition,  ^'  Thy  king- 
dom come  "  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  namely,  "  Thy  will 
be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth."  ^    The  kingdom  of 

1  Hastings'  B.  D.,  II,  619.  . 

2  Kingdom  of  God,  p.  46.         ^  Teaching  of  Jesus,  I,  175. 
*  The  Social  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  64. 
s  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  35.  «  Matt.  6  :  10. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  69 

God  is  the  rule  of  God  in  human  hearts  and  lives ;  it 
is  so  much  of  the  world  of  human  thought  and  action 
,a,s  makes  the  will  of  God  its  law. 

If  we  must  single  out  any  one  phrase  or  conception  The  place  of 
as  best  representing  the  idea  of  Jesus,  we  could  not  dofff'Mn^' 
do  better  than   to  choose   "the  kingdom  of   God."  the  teaching 
But  a  certain  onesidedness  is  quite  likely  to  result  **^'^®^'^^* 
from  such  a  selection  of  a  single  category.^    Jesus  ran 
his  thoughts  into  no  single  mould,  but  expressed  them 
with  the  largest  freedom,  in  a  great  variety  of  forms. 
His  teaching  had  nothing  of  the  stereotyped  character 
which  we  observe  in  that  of  others.     "  The  kingdom 
of  God  "  was  a  convenient  and  expressive  term  which 
he  transformed  and  elevated  to  his  own  uses ;  and,  if 
it  is  comprehensively  understood,  there  is  no  better 
symbol  of  the  truth  which  he  came  to  impart  and  of 
the  work  which  he  came  to  accomplish.     To  dissemi- 
nate that  truth,  to  perpetuate  that  work,  is  the  task  of 
his  followers  to  the  end  of  time. 

1  On  this  point  see  Orr,  The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the 
World,  pp.  401-412  ;  Kidd,  Morality  and  Religion,  Lect.  VIII ; 
Drummond,  The  Relation  of  the  Apostolic  Teaching  to  the 
Teaching  of  Christ,  pp.  179-186. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE   FATHER    IN    HEAVEN 


Jesus' 
certainty  of 
God's 
fatherhood. 


Jesus'  favorite  designation  for  God  was  that  of 
Father.  He  was  accustomed  to  think  and  speak  of 
him  as  his  own  Father  ^  and  to  address  him  in  prayer 
with  such  words  as :  "I  thank  thee,  0  Father," ^  and 
"Abba,  Father."*  All  his  teaching  concerning  God 
proceeds  upon  the  definite,  unclouded  certainty  that 
God  was  his  Father.  "  All  things  have  been  delivered 
funto  me  of  my  Father;  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son 
feave  the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father, 
|save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth 
|to  reveal  him,"^  —  this  is  the  best  expression  of  the 
certainty  and  of  the  meaning  of  God's  fatherhood  in 
its  relation  to  himself.  When  he  spoke  to  men  about 
God  as  the  Father  in  heaven  he  spoke  from  an  inti- 
mate knowledge,  a  clear  inner  certitude  which  sprang 
from  his  own  perfect  fellowship  with  God.     He  knew 


1  General  References :  The  New  Testament  Tlieologies  and 
the  works  of  Bruce  and  Wendt,  already  cited ;  R.  S.  Candlish, 
The  Fatherhood  of  God,  5th  ed.,  1870,  advocating  the  view  that 
God  is  the  Father  of  believers  only  ;  T.  J.  Crawford,  same 
title,  3d  ed.,  1878,  a  reply  to  the  foregoing ;  C.  M.  Mead,  in  the 
Am.  Jour,  of  TheoL,  July,  1898  (defending  limited  conception 
of  fatherhood)  ;  Stevens,  Tlie  Johannine  Theology.,  ch,  iii,  and 
the  literature  there  cited  ;  Sanday,  article  "  God,"  in  Hastings' 
B.  D.  (containing  many  references  to  technical  treatises)  ; 
Harnack,  Oott  der  Vater  u.  s.  w.  in  Das  Wesen  des  Christen- 
tums,  pp.  40-45. 

2  Matt.  10  :  32  ;  11  :  27  ;  Lk.  22  :  29. 

8  Matt.  11  :  25.  *  Mk.  14  :  36.  ^  Matt.  11 :  27. 

70 


THE  FATHER  IN  HEAVEN  71 

himself  as  God's  well-beloved  Son,  the  special  object 
of  the  Father's  good  pleasure/  and  his  life-work  as 
occupation  with  the  affairs  of  his  Father.^ 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  consider  the  significance  The  doctrine 
for  his  own  person  of  Jesus'  consciousness  of  God's  fatherhood 
fatherhood  when  we  come  to  discuss  his  sonship  to  central  in 
God.     It  is  sufficient  here  to  point  out  how  central  is  of  Jesus!"^"^ 
this  conviction  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  how  it 
underlies  all  his  assurances  to  men  concerning  the 
nature  and  character  of  God.     He  who  told  men  that 
God  was  their  Father  himself  knew  him  as  his  own 
Father.     It  was  one  who  knew  himself  as  God's  Son 
who  told  men  that  they,  too,  might  be  sons  of  God. 

What  did  Jesus  mean  by  the  words,  "  your  Father  Meaning  of 
who  is  in  heaven "  ?     "  Fatherhood  "  is  a  figurative  ^^therhood 
term  derived  from  human  relationships.     What  quali-  as  related  to 
ties  does  it  cover  and  describe  ?    What  dispositions  on  °^^^^^°^- 
the  part  of  God,  what  attitude  toward  men,  is  it  in- 
tended to  emphasize?     Jesus  no  more  defined  the 
term   "Father"   than   he  defined  "the  kingdom  of 
God."     We  must  gather  his  idea  of  fatherhood  by 
inference  from  the  various  references  which  he  made 
to  the  feeling,  action,  and  requirements  of  the  Father 
in  heaven.     A  few  characteristic  examples  of  these  iiiustra- 
freferences    are   as   follows:    "Let   your   light   shine  '^^°^' 
jbefore  men  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and 
(glorify  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven." '    "  Love  your 
enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you ;  that 
ye  may  be  the  sons  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven; 
for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good, 
and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust."  *    "  Ye 
therefore  shall  be  perfect  [complete  in  love],  as  your 
heavenly  Father  is  perfect."  *    On  one  occasion,  after 
inculcating  a  lesson  in  humility,  Jesus  added :  "  For 

1  Mk.  1 :  11.  »  Matt.  5  :  16.  »  Matt.  6  :  48. 

2Lk.  2:49.  *  Matt.  5 :  44,  45. 


72 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Contents  of 
the  term. 


one  is  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven/'  and  "  he  that  is 
greatest  among  you  shall  be  your  servant " ;  ^  and,  at 
another  time,  after  having  taught  his  disciples  to  come 
to  God  with  confidence  in  prayer,  he  added:  "And 
Whensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have 
aught  against  any  one ;  that  your  Father  also  who  is 
in  heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses."  ^ 

What,  now,  is  the  meaning  of  God's  fatherhood 
which  is  involved  in  such  expressions  as  these?  I 
should  answer  that  the  idea  of  God's  fatherhood  em- 
braces the  four  following  elements :  (1)  It  denotes  the 
[relation  of  kindred  beings  —  the  relation  of  a  person 
(to  other  persons.  God  is  Father  only  in  relation  to 
men,  who  are  kindred  in  nature  to  God,  and  capable 
jof  fellowship  with  him.  Your  Father  (not  theirs),  said 
iJesus,  feeds  the  birds.'  (2)  The  fatherhood  of  God 
includes  the  idea  of  his  special,  providential  care, 
"Your  Father  knoweth  what  things  you  have  need, 
of."  *  Jesus  bases  the  doctrine  of  prayer  in  the  pater- 
nity of  God,  and  teaches  men  to  pray,  beginning,  "Oui 
Father."  *  (3)  Fatherhood  includes  the  divine  compas- 
sion. The  Father  in  heaven  is  the  pitying,  forgiving 
God.  This  is  the  outstanding  characteristic  of  God's 
fatherhood  as  portrayed  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal 
3on.  It  is  also  implied  in  the  teaching  that  men  must 
be  forgiving,  if  they  expect  God  to  forgive  them.*' 
(4)  God's  fatherhood  means  his  universal  benevolence. 
He  is  complete  (tc'Acios),  not  grudging  and  partial,  in 
his  love.'  He  loves  and  blesses  all  men,  even  "un- 
just "  men.  Those  who  will  be  like  God,  "  sons  "  of 
the  heavenly  Father,  must  do  likewise.  To  love  only 
one's  friends  and  favorites  is  to  remain  on  the  low 
level  of  heathen  morality ;  if  men  will  be  imitators  of 


1  Matt.  23:9,  11. 

2  Mk.  11 :  25. 


8  Matt.  6  :  26. 
*  Matt.  6  : 8,  32. 
7  Matt.  5  :  48. 


6  Matt.  6  :  9. 

«  Matt.  6  :  14,  15. 


THE  FATHEB  IN  HEAVEN  73 

God,  they  must  love  all  men,  even  their  enemies,  and 
desire  and  seek  to  do  them  good.^ 

These  considerations  already  involve  the  answer  to  is  God  the 
the  question,  whether,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  God  is  ^^^^  |^  ®^  ^^^ 
regarded  as  the  Father  of  all  men,  or  only  of  Christian 
believers.  There  is,  indeed,  no  saying  of  Jesus  which 
explicitly  answers  the  question.  The  answer  must  be 
derived  by  inference  from  the  nature  of  fatherhood  as 
illustrated  by  Jesus,  and  from  the  general  tenor  of  his 
teaching  concerning  God.  I  think  there  is  no  room  for 
doubt  that  Jesus  conceived  of  God  as  the  Father  of  all 
men.  In  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  the  father  does 
not  lose  his  paternal  character  or  feeling  because  of 
}he  unfilial  conduct  of  his  lost  son.  The  language  of 
Jesus  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  shows  that  father- 
hood and  love  are  synonymous  terms  as  applied  to 
Grod.  His  fatherhood  is  his  creative,  forgiving,  all- 
embracing  love,  and  must,  therefore,  be  universal. 

The  same  view  is  borne  out  by  the  representations  The  fourth 
of  Jesus'  teaching  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  There  God  f^TdivhTe 
is  called  (in  relation  to  men)^  "the  Father"  without 
qualification  or  restriction.^  Nor  is  any  valid  objec- 
tion to  this  view  to  be  derived  from  the  words,  "If 
God  were  your  Father,"  etc.,  and  "  Ye  are  of  your  fa- 
ther the  devil,"  ^  etc.  The  limitation  of  God's  father- 
hood in  these  expressions  is  rather  apparent  than  real. 
When  the  passage  as  a  whole  is  considered,  it  is  seen  God's 
that  nothing  is  denied  which  is  affirmed  or  implied 
in  the  Synoptic  teaching,  since  the  object  of  Jesus' 
words  is  not  to  define  the  nature  of  God,  but  to  de- 
scribe the  character  of  certain  men.  It  is  an  argumen- 
tum  ad  hominem,  in  rebuttal  of  their  claim  that  they 

1  Matt.  5  :  44-46 ;  Lk.  6  :  35. 

2  Cf.  my  Theol.  of  the  N.  T.,  pp.  180,  181. 
«  Jn.  4:23;  15:10;  16:23. 
*  Jn.  8  :  42,  44. 


fatherhood. 


74 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


A  reductio 

ad 

absurdum. 


are  the  sons  of  Abraham  and  of  God.  The  purpose  of 
the  sayings  in  question  is  to  emphasize  how  unlike 
God,  in  their  spirit  and  action,  the  opponents  of  Jesus 
were.  The  import  of  the  passage  is :  You  are  not  true 
sons  of  God,  as  you  claim  to  be,  just  as  you  are  not 
true  sons  of  Abraham ;  you  are  unlike  both  Abraham 
and  God  in  character.  The  argument  which  would 
prove  from  these  phrases  that  God  was  not  the  Father 
of  the  Pharisees  would  equally  prove  from  the  words, 
"  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children,"  ^  that  the  Pharisees 
were  not  descendants  of  Abraham.^  If,  however,  one 
be  disposed  to  insist  on  the  form  of  words,  "  If  God 
were  your  Fatlier,^  all  that  could  be  inferred  would  be 
that  fatherhood  is  here  used  as  a  name  for  the  favor 
or  approval  (the  complaisant  love)  of  God.  In  the  sense 
of  approving  all,  God  is  not,  of  course,  the  Father  of  all 
men.  In  any  case,  when  the  content  of  the  idea  of 
fatherhood,  as  represented  in  the  Synoptics,  namely, 
as  original,  compassionate,  universal  love,  is  taken  into 
account,  it  is  certain  that  we  find  nothing  inconsistent 
with  this  idea  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  In  this  version 
of  Jesus'  teaching  also  God  so  loves  as  to  love  the 
world.^ 

It  is  obvious  from  what  has  been  said  that  father- 


1  Jn.  8  :  39. 

2  Since  these  words  constitute  the  rebuttal  to  the  Pharisees' 
statement,  "Our  father  is  Abraham"  (v.  39),  they  are  equiva- 
lent to  the  afiBrmation,  Your  father  is  not  Abraham.  The  par- 
allelism between  this  phrase  and  the  words,  "  If  God  were  your 
Father"  (v.  42),  also  establishes  this  equivalence.  But  that 
Abraham  is,  in  a  true  and  proper  sense,  their  father  is  recog- 
nized in  v,  37.  The  real  meaning  is  :  You  are  not  true  sons  of 
Abraham  ;  that  is,  you  do  not  act  as  he  did;  you  do  not  "  do 
the  works  of  Abraham"  (v.  39).  In  like  manner,  in  saying, 
The  devil,  and  not  God,  is  your  father,  the  meaning  is:  You 
are  like  the  devil,  and  not  like  God. 

8  Jn.  3  :  16  :  8  :  12. 


THE  FATHER  IN  HEAVEN  75 

hood  is  more  than  creatorship.  It  denotes,  primarily, 
ethical  qualities  and  relations.  It  defines  the  character 
of  God  as  revealed  in  Christ  and  manifested  in  his  dis- 
position and  action  toward  men.  If  one  were  to  use 
the  technical  terms  of  theology,  he  would  say  that 
fatherhood  comprises,  not  the  natural,  but  the  moral, 
attributes  of  God. 

This  result  furnishes  the  right  point  of  view  from  Are  all  mei 
which  to  answer  the  question,  whether,  if  God  is  the  ^°^^^  ^^ 
Father  of  all  men,  all  men  are  sons  of  God.  If  father- 
hood meant  mere  creatorship,  there  could  be  no  question 
respecting  the  answer.  All  men  are  God's  creatures ; 
they  are  the  "  offspring  of  God,"  ^  and,  in  that  sense,  his 
sons.  But  since,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  the  stress 
in  the  conception  of  fatherhood  lies  upon  the  moral 
character  and  personal  relations  of  God  to  men,  the 
answer  is  not  so  evident.  If  the  essence  of  fatherhood 
is  love  and  if  the  essence  of  sonship  is  likeness  to  God, 
are  all  men  sons  of  God  ?  God  is  always  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  of  all,  for  he  is  always  what  he  ought 
to  be ;  he  always  corresponds  to  his  idea  ;  in  him  the 
Ideal  and  the  real  are  identical.  But  with  men  it  is 
not  so.  They  are,  indeed,  morally  kindred  to  God,  and, 
in  that  sense,  sons  of  God.  They  are  also  ideally,  that 
LS,  in  the  divine  idea  of  humanity,  sons  of  God,  since 
man  is  made  and  designed  for  fellowship  with  God 
md  likeness  to  God ;  but,  in  fact,  men  realize  their 
idea  but  imperfectly;  many  by  wilful  sin  repudiate 
iheir  true  filial  relation  to  God  and  are  "  no  more  worthy 
to  be  called  "  ^  God's  sons. 

Accordingly  we  find  that  Jesus  was  not  accustomed  to  Men  hecorr 
speak  of  all  men  as  sons  of  God.  The  man  who  refuses  ^°°^  °^  ^° 
the  life  of  love  is  not  a  son  of  God  in  the  sense  in  which 

fTesus  uses  the  term.      Hence  he  spoke  of  the  way  in 
vhich,  by  acting  in  a  Godlike  manner,  men  "  become 

1  Acts  17:29.  2  Lk.  16:19. 


76 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


{y€vr)(rOe)  the  sons  "  ^  of  God.  The  same  usage  is  seen 
in  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  Jews  who  refused  him 
and  despised  his  message  are  not  sons  of  God,  but  of 
Satan.2  Jesus'  conception  of  sonship  to  God,  as  the 
moral  counterpart  of  God's  fatherhood,  is  very  clearly 
"reflected  in  the  saying :  "  As  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  the  right  to  become  {yevia-Oai)  children  of 
God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  ?iame."^ 

The  question  of  man's  sonship  to  God  is  often  dis- 
cussed quite  without  reference  to  the  specific  usage  of 
Jesus  or  without  considering  the  nature  of  the  correla- 
tion between  fatherhood  and  sonship  as  he  conceives 
them.  Fatherhood  is  often  taken  in  a  mere  natural 
sense,  and  the  easy  conclusion  drawn  that  all  men  are 
sons  of  God.  Or,  the  sonship  of  all  men  to  God  is 
deduced  from  the  words  of  the  model  prayer,  "  Our 
Father,"  and  from  the  fact  that  in  the  parable  the 
prodigal  is  still  regarded  as  a  son.  The  answer  to 
the  first  argument  is  that  the  phrase,  "  Our  Father," 
is  the  beginning  of  a  form  of  prayer  which  Jesus  gave 
to  his  disciples,  and  to  the  second  the  answer  is  that 
it  proceeds  upon  an  allegorizing  application  of  the 
idea  of  mere  natural  fatherhood.  There  is  little  occa- 
sion for  doubt  or  difference  of  opinion  respecting  the 
meaning  of  Jesus  in  his  teaching  about  fatherhood 
and  sonship.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  even  the  worst 
of  men  may  be  called  sons  of  God ;  that  is,  they  are 
designed  for  fellowship  with  God  and  by  virtue  of  their 
moral  nature  are  capable  of  obedience  and  love  to  him ; 
but  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which  Jesus  uses  the  term. 
He  uses  it  as  the  moral  counterpart  of  God's  father- 
hood, that  is,  completeness  in  love.  Hence,  in  this 
characteristic  usage  of  words,  they  only  are  sons  of 
God  who  live  the  life  of  love  in  fellowship  with 
God. 

1  Matt.  5 :  45.  2  ju.  3  :  41-44.  »  Jn.  1  :  12. 


THE  FATHER  IN  HEAVEN 


7T 


We  can  now  see  how  in  his  teaching  concerning 
God,  as  in  regard  to  other  subjects,  Jesus  fulfilled  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  The  Old  Testament  reli- 
gion had  attained  a  lofty,  ethical  monotheism  in  which 
strong  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  unity  and  right- 
eousness of  God.  Jesus  recognized  the  great  truths 
underlying  this  conception  of  God,  and  built  upon 
them  in  his  teaching.  When  asked,  "What  com- 
mandment is  the  first  of  all,"  he  answered,  beginning, 
"  The  first  is.  Hear,  0  Israel.  The  Lord  our  God,  the 
Lord  is  one,"  etc.^  As  in  the  Old  Testament,^  so  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  God  is  the  righteous  King  and 
Judge  of  men.^  Nor  were  the  qualities  of  God  which 
fatherhood  connotes  wholly  unrecognized  in  Israel. 
God  is  there  described  as  a  God  of  grace  and  pity,* 
and  is  occasionally  called  Father.'^  But  the  love  and 
fatherly  solicitude  of  God  are  commonly  conceived  as 
terminating  upon  Israel.  God  is  regarded  as  the 
Father  of  the  Jewish  nation,  or  of  their  king;^  his 
paternal  relation  to  all  men,  though  not  wholly  unrec- 
ognized,^ is  not  the  predominant  idea  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, nor  did  it  ever  become  the  practical,  working 
theory  of  the  Jewish  people.  "  God  is  our  Father  "  * 
was  their  motto ;  that  is,  we  are  the  special  objects  of 
his  love  and  favor.  Against  this  proud  and  exclusive 
claim,  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  the  Apostle  Paul  had 
frequent  occasion  to  protest. 

1  Mk.  12  :  28,  29.  »  E.g.  Ps.  5  :  2  ;  24  :  10 ;  103 :  13. 

»  Matt.  6  :  35  ;  11  :  25 ;  18  :  23  ff . ;  22  :  2  ff. 

*  IIos.  11  : 1 ;  Is.  1  : 2.  6  Deut.  1  :  31  ;  8:5. 

«  2  Sam.  7  :  14  ;  Ps.  89  :  26,  27. 

''  Jer.  2  :  27 ;  3  : 4  ;  Mai.  1:6.  Of  these  passages  Schultz  says : 
"They  refer  to  God  solely  as  the  great  First  Cause  and  the 
Supreme  Ruler,  so  that  nothing  more  is  implied  than  in  the 
term  'Lord.'  Consequently,  as  a  real  divine  name,  this  word 
does  not  take  us  beyond  the  ordinary  Old  Testament  doctrine 
of  God."—  0.  T.  Theol.  II,  138,  139.  ^  jn.  8  :41. 


78 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


God's  uni-  .  Now,  while  Jesus  recognized  that  the  fatherhood  of 
versal  love.  ^^^  ^^^  ^  deeper  meaning  and  richer  content  for  his 
faithful  and  obedient  disciples  than  for  others,  because 
.  fatherhood  denotes  personal  relations  which,  by  their 
aature,  are  reciprocal,  still,  he  never  limited  the  father- 
liood  of  God,  after  the  manner  of  Jewish  particularism, 
jrod's  grace  is  boundless.  He  is  as  ready  to  bless  and 
save  Gentiles  as  Jews.  Indeed,  in  the  case  of  one 
Gentile,  Jesus  pronounced  a  favorable  opinion  which 
it  would  be  difficult  to  match  among  all  his  recorded 
judgments  of  men.  Speaking  of  the  Roman  centurion 
at  Capernaum,  he  declared  that  in  all  Israel  he  had 
not  found  a  disposition  so  pleasing  to  God  as  that  of 
this  heathen  soldier.^ 

^  Jesus  fulfilled  the  Old  Testament  conception  of  God 
by  exalting  the  spirituality^  and  the  universal  love 
)f  God.  This  love  is,  at  once,  holy  and  benevolent. 
A.S  it  is  both  pure  and  pitying  in  itself,  so  does  it  re- 
juire  purity  and  pity  in  men.^  The  sons  of  God  must 
36  the  "salt''  and  "light"  of  the  world;*  but  they 
must  ms^  be  ready  to  forgive  men  their  offences,  as 
,  yp-  bhe^  If'atlier  in  heaven  has  shown  himself  ready  to  for- 
^3  Igive  them.'^  Christ  frequently  emphasized  God's  pity 
to  the  undeserving  and  outcast,  and  represented  his 
own  work  as  a  mission  to  the  lost.^  His  enemies 
called  him  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,''  and  they 
were  right.     He  cared  for  those  for  whom  nobody  else 


His 

readiness  to 
forgive. 


'<3/t/ 


oJU/r^ 


1  Lk.  7  : 9. 

2  "  Spirit  is  God,"  TveOfia  6  OeSs ;  Jn.  4  :  24. 

8  See  the  article  "Righteousness,"  in  Hastings'  B.  D. 

*  Matt.  5  : 3,  14. 

6  Matt.  6  :  13-15.  Indeed,  the  forgiving  spirit  is  made  the  pre- 
condition of  the  divine  forgiveness.  In  the  Lord's  Prayer  his 
disciples  are  taught  to  pray :  ' '  Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  also 
have  forgiven  (dcp-^Ka/xev)  our  debtors"  (Matt.  6  :  12). 

6  See,  especially,  Lk.  15.  7  Matt.  11 :  19. 


THE  FATHER  IN  HEAVEN  79 

cared,  and  in  so  doing  knew  that  he  was  doing  the  will 
and  revealing  the  nature  of  him  that  sent  him. 

But  it  was  not  merely  in  Jesus'  teaching  that  he  Thereveia 
emphasized  the  grace  and  fatherhood  of  God ;  he  em-  ii^Sie  life 
phasized  these  truths  by  the  whole  spirit  and  work  of  of  Jesus, 
his  life.  When  Philip  said  unto  him,  "  Show  us  the 
Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us,"  he  answered:  "Have  1 
been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  dost  thou  not  know 
me,  Philip?  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father;  how  sayest  thou.  Show  us  the  Father?"^ 
What  could  Jesus  mean  by  saying  that  to  see  him 
was  to  see  the  Father  ?  Many  passages  show  that  he 
could  not  have  intended  to  identify  himself  absolutely 
with  the  Father,  denying  all  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  himself.  He  must  have  meant  that  in  his 
own  person  and  work  the  fatherliness  of  God  was  so 
revealed  that  one  need  not  look  elsewhere  to  obtain  a 
'  knowledge  of  what  God  is.  His  life  is  the  adequate 
revelation  of  God.  He  and  the  Father  are  one  in 
nature,  in  spirit,  and  in  working.^  "  My  Father  work- 
eth  hitherto,"  says  Jesus,  the  Father  has  always  been 
active  in  blessing  and  saving  men,  "and  I  work."^ 
The  life  of  Jesus  is  all  in  the  line  of  the  Father's  un- 
ceasing beneficence,  and  is  the  historical  interpretation 
and  realization  of  it. 

Jesus'  doctrine  of  God  is  to  be  derived,  therefore,  Jesus 
not  merely  from  what  he  said  about  God,  but  from  revelatioS! 
what  he  did  and  was.  He  is  himself  the  revelation  of 
God,  the  interpretation  of  God  to  man.  His  life  is 
the  self-utterance  of  God  in  history.  He  is  the  true 
living  Word  of  God,  the  image,  the  expression  of  Deity 
whereby  we  learn  most  of  the  nature  and  feelings 
toward  us  of  the  infinite  and  invisible  God.    He  re- 


iJn.l4:8,  9.  2  Jn.  10:30. 

»  Jn.  6 :  17. 


80  THE  TEACniNG  OF  JESUS 

veals  God's  fatherly  qualities  by  exhibiting  toward 
men  a  more  than  human  compassion  and  tenderness, 
and  by  himself  living,  in  his  relation  to  God,  a  per- 
fectly filial  life,  thus  showing  man  how  to  be  certain 
of  God's  fatherhood  by  himself  living  as  a  son  of  God. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE   SON    OF   MAN 


The  title  "  the  Son  of  man  "  occurs  thirty-five  times,  Use  of  •'  Son 
excluding  duplicates,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  II^qqZqIq 
eleven  times  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  In  the  former  it 
is  uniformly  a  self-designation  of  Jesus;  in  John, 
also,  it  is  practically  such,  unless  we  adopt  the  opin- 
ion of  some  that  the  passage,  3  :  13-15,  purports  to  be 
the  language  of  the  author  rather  than  that  of  Jesus. 
This  view  would  make  the  translation  at  verse  13  very 
abrupt.  In  John  12 :  34,  where  the  people  ask,  "  Who 
is  this  Son  of  man  ?  "  they  are  but  echoing  Jesus'  use 
of  the  term  in  the  statement  immediately  preceding. 
Thus  the  fourth  Gospel  is  seen  to  agree  substantially 
with  the  Synoptics  in  representing  "  the  Son  of  man  " 
to  be  a  title  which  Jesus  applied  to  himself.  About 
any  independent  use  of  it  by  others  the  Gospels  are 

1  General  References  :  Lock,  article,  "  Son  of  Man,"  in 
Hastings'  B.  D.;  Drummond,  article,  "Use  and  Meaning  of 
the  Phrase  '  Son  of  Man'  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,"  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies,  April,  July,  1901  ;  Stalker,  The  Chris- 
tology  of  Jesus,  ch.  ii ;  G.  Alexander,  The  Son  of  Man;  Bal- 
densperger.  Das  Selhsthewusstsein  Jesu  (untranslated);  R.  H. 
Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  Appendix  B,  on  the  title  "Son 
of  Man";  J.  V.  Bartlet,  in  The  Expositor,  December,  1892; 
N.  Schmidt,  "  Was  Bamasha  a  Messianic  Title?  "  in  the  Jour- 
nal of  Biblical  Literature,  Vol.  XV  (1896)  ;  Wellhausen,  Skizzen 
und  Vorarbeiten,  Heft  6.  The  history  of  opinion  respecting 
the  meaning  of  the  title  is  given  in  Appel's  Die  Selbstbezeichnung 
Jesu,  in  Lietzmann's  Z>er  Menschensohn  (both  untranslated), 
and,  more  briefly,  in  Stevens'  The  Theology  of  the  N.  T.^ 
pp.  46-52. 

o  81 


82 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


silent.  The  title  does  not  occur  in  Paul's  writings, 
and  but  once,  elsewhere,  in  the  New  Testament.^  The 
tracing  of  its  history  and  the  determination  of  its 
meaning  are  among  the  most  difficult  tasks  of  New 
Testament  science. 

The  term  ^'son  of  man"  occurs  frequently  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  it  is  natural  to  seek  some  point  of 
contact  between  its  use  as  applied  to  Jesus  and  its 
meaning  (or  some  one  of  its  meanings)  in  the  ^Id 
Testament.  It  occurs  most  frequently  in  Ezekiel  as 
a  name  for  the  prophet,  thus :  "  And  he  (the  LordJ 
said  unto  me,  Son  of  man,  stand  upon  thy  feet,  and  t 
will  speak  with  thee.  And  the  Spirit  entered  into  mq 
when  he  spake  unto  me,  and  set  me  upon  my  feetj 
md  I  heard  him  that  spake  unto  me.  And  he  saidl 
unto  me,  Son  of  man,  I  send  thee  to  the  children  of 
Israel,"  etc.^  Here  the  name  means  merely  man,  witi 
a  certain  emphasis  upon  his  weakness  and  dependence 
in  contrast  to  God.  Elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testamen" 
the  term  is  often  used  as  a  synonym  for  man,  consia- 
fered  as  a  finite,  mortal  creature,  as  in  Ps.  8 :  4,  where 
the  parallelism  shows  that  "the  son  of  man"  in  the 
second  line  is  equivalent  to  "  man  "  in  the  first.* 

A  later  Old  Testament  usage  is  found,  or  at  least 
suggested,  in  the  Book  of  Daniel.  In  chapter  7  a  sym- 
fbolic  description  of  the  world-kingdoms  is  given  unded 
•the  designation  of  "beasts."  Then,  in  contrast  toj 
these  brutal  powers  which  are  doomed  to  destruction, 
the  seer  beholds  a  kingdom  emerging  which  shall 
have  no  end.     "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and,  be- 


1  Acts  7  :  56.     In  Revelation  (1  :  13  ;  14  :  14)  we  have  the 
Danielle  form,  "  One  like  unto  a  son  of  man." 

2  Ezek.  2  : 1-.3. 

»  "  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ? 
And  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him?" 
Cf.  Job  25  :6;  Ps.  144  :  3  ;  146  :3  ;  Is.  61 :  12  ;  56  :2. 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  83 

hold,  there  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  one  like 
unto  a  son  of  man,"  etc.  "  And  there  was  given  him 
dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  the  peo- 
ples, nations,  and  languages  should  serve  him :  his 
lominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not 
pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be 
destroyed."  ^  This  is  a  picture  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom which,  in  contrast  to  the  "beasts,"  is  dignified 
by  being  compared  to  the  noble  human  form.  That  A  designa- 
by  the  "one  like  unto  a  son  of  man"  is  meant  the  Messiauic^^ 
nation  of  Israel,  exalted  and  glorified,  is  evident  from  kingdom, 
verse  27 :  "  And  the  kingdom  and  the  dominion,  and 
the  greatness  of  the  kingdoms  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High,"  etc.  This  passage,  then,  illustrates, 
in  the  earliest  apocalyptic  book  of  Judaism  which  is 
known  to  us,  a  mode  of  thought  and  speech  which 
compared  the  Messianic  kingdom  to  a  son  of  man, 
that  is,  to  a  man,  while  other  kingdoms  were  desig- 
nated as  "  beasts."  We  do  not  yet  hear  the  Messiah 
himself  designated  as  "  a  son  of  man,"  much  less  as 
"  the  Son  of  man,"  nor  do  we  even  find  him  personally 
compared  to  a  son  of  man.  It  is  easy  to  see,  however' 
how  out  of  the  comparison  of  his  kingdom  (conceived 
as  a  glorified  Israel)  to  a  son  of  man  a  usage  might 
arise  which  should  designate  the  Messiah  himself  as 
''  the  Son  of  man,"  particularly  in  apocalyptic  books 
which  were  kindred  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  or  influ- 
enced by  it. 

To  what  extent  this  usage  was  actually  developed  Deveiop- 
(if  developed  at  all)  in  pre-Christian  times,  is  a  diffi-  S'slge^oV^^ 
cult  and  disputed  question.     Certain  it  is  that  "  the  "  Son  of 
Son  of  man "   became  a  Messianic  designation,  but  Messiah, 
whether  it  had  already  become  such  before  Christ's 
coming  we  do  not  positively  know.    The  steps  of  the 
1  Dan.  7  :  13,  14. 


84  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

process  probably  were  these  :  First,  the  "  one  like  to 
a  son  of  man  "  in  Daniel  was  understood  as  a  personal 
designation ;  it  is  so  understood  in  the  Similitudes  of  the 
feook  of  Enoch ;  then,  in  consequence  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  passage  in  question  to  the  Messiah,  the  com- 
parison would  easily  fall  away  and  "the  Son  of  man  " 
ivvould  become  a  direct  Messianic  title.  This  usage 
also  we  see  illustrated  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  in  which 
the  Messiah  is  frequently  designated  as  "the  Son  of 
man,"  with  a  view  to  emphasizing  especially  his  maj- 
esty and  glory.^  If  it  were  certain  that  those  portions 
of  this  Jewish  apocalyptic  book  called  the  Similitudes 
in  which  this  usage  is  found,  were  pre-Christian,^  then 
we  should  have  an  illustration  of  the  currency  in  pre- 
Christian  times  of  "  the  son  of  man  "  as  a  Messianic 
title,  and  could  naturally  account  for  Jesus'  use  of  the 
designation.  But  the  known  facts  do  not  carry  us  sc 
ffar ;  they  merely  show  us  that  (probably  on  the  basi£ 
jof  the  Danielic  passage)  the  Messianic  use  of  the  term 
Q'the  Son  of  man"  was,  in  the  course  of  time,  developed 
Not  in  cur-  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  a  use  of  terms  of  whicn 
Messianic^*  we  have  no  certain  examples  in  literature  was,  never- 
titie  in  theless,  more  or  less  current.    We  are  warranted,  how- 

Jesus  age.  ^^gj.^  ^^  saying  that  "  the  Son  of  man  "  can  hardly  have 
been  in  common  use  as  a  Messianic  title  in  Jesus' 
time ;  had  that  been  the  case,  the  fact  must  have  left 
some  clear  trace  of  itself  in  the  literature  of  pre-Chris- 
tian Judaism.  If  it  was  in  use  as  a  name  for  the  Mes- 
siah when  Jesus  came,  its  employment  must  have  been 
limited  and  occasional.^  Perhaps  we  may  find  in  this 
fact  a  reason  why  Jesus  preferred  it  as  his  own  self- 

1  E.g.  "For  the  Son  of  man  has  appeared  and  sits  upon  the 
throne  of  his  glory,"  etc.  (46  : 1). 

2  As  Schiirer,  Charles,  and  others  hold ;  per  contra,  Drum- 
mond,  Stanton,  Dalman,  et  al. 

«  Cf.  my  Theol.  of  the  N.  T.,  pp.  41-43. 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


85 


designation.  The  Gospels  show  us  that  he  refrained 
from  proclaiming  his  Messiahship ;  if "  the  Son  of 
man"  was  not  in  general  use  in  the  sense  of  "the 
Messiah,"  it  would,  in  this  respect,  perfectly  serve  his 
purpose. 

When,  now,  we  turn  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and 
observe  the  passages  in  which  the  title  occurs,  we  find 
that  they  fall  into  three  classes,  —  two  of  them  quite 
well  defined,  the  third  more  indefinite.  In  one  group  of 
passages  the  title  is  associated  with  Jesus'  sufferings  and 
death;  for  example:  "The  Son  of  man  must  suffer 
many  things  " ;  ^  "is  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of 
men  " ;  ^  "  goeth  [to  death]  even  as  it  is  written  of 
tiim."^  In  a  second  group  of  passages  the  Son  of  man 
IS  depicted  as  coming  again  in  power  and  glory  to 
Judgment :  "  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of 
man  in  heaven  "  ;  *  "When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come 
in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall 
he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory ";''  "and  they  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  clouds  with  great  power 
and  glory."  * 

If  this  first  group  of  passages  be  taken  as  illustrat- 
ing the  general  idea  of  lowliness  and  humiliation,  and 
the  second  group  as  depicting  power  and  majesty,  then 
a  number  of  passages  which  do  not  speak  specifically 
of  either  may  be  associated  with  one  or  other  of  the 
groups.  To  the  former  would  belong,  for  example, 
feuch  sayings  as  this  :  "  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the 
pirds  of  the  heaven  have  nests ;  but  the  Son  of  man 
[hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head  " '  —  emphasizing  the 
lowly  poverty  of  the  Son  of  man.  To  the  same  group 
would  belong  the  saying  that  "  the  Son  of  man  came 


Three  uses 
of  the  term 
in  the 
Synoptics. 

(1)  Humil- 
ity and 
suffering. 


N. 


/??o 


1  Mk.  8 :  31.  ♦  Matt.  24 :  31. 

3Mk.  9:11.  6  Matt.  25:31. 

«  Mk.  14  :  31.  «  Mk.  13 :  26. 

'Lk.  9:58;  Matt.  8:20. 

hu/mom 


86 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


(3)  Rela- 
tively 
colorless 
passages. 


Usage  in  the 

fourth 

Gospel. 


[not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,"  ^  and,  per- 
thaps,  also  the  saying  that  blasphemy  against  the  Son 
;of  man  is  less  severely  judged  than  blasphemy  against 
ithe  Holy  Spirit  of  grace  and  truth  which  wrought  in 
this  beneficent  ministry .^  To  the  second  group  belong, 
in  their  general  idea,  certain  expressions  of  the  dig- 
pity,  rights,  and  prerogative  of  the  Son  of  man,  such  as, 
r  The  Son  of  man  hath  authority  (i^ova-Lo)  on  earth  to 
[forgive  sins,"  ^  and,  "  The  Son  of  man  is  lord  even  of 
the  sabbath."  ^ 

A  third  and  smaller  group  of  texts  represents  a  rela- 
tively colorless  use  of  the  designation  "the  Son  of 
man."  Examples  are  :  "  The  Son  of  man  came  eating 
and  drinking  [that  is,  disdaining  an  ascetic  life  like 
that  of  John  the  Baptist],  and  they  say.  Behold  a 
gluttonous  man,"^  etc. ;  "  He  that  soweth  the  good  seed 
is  the  Son  of  man  "  ;  ^  "  For  the  Son  of  man  came  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost."^  These  pas- 
sages depict  important  aspects  of  Christ's  person  and 
work,  —  his  geniality,  his  communication  of  truth  and 
life,  his  pity  and  solicitude  for  the  sinful,  —  but  they 
do  not  possess  the  characteristic  note  of  either  of  the 
other  two  groups  of  passages,  namely,  humility  and 
majesty. 

If  we  turn  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  find  there  a 
twofold  usage  which  corresponds,  in  general,  to  that 
which  we  have  observed  in  the  Synoptics.  On  the 
one  hand,  it  was  necessary  that  the  Son  of  man  be 


1  Mk.  10  :  45  ;  Matt.  20 :  28. 

2  Matt.  12 :  32.  Cf.  Lk.  12 :  10.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Mark 
has,  in  the  parallel  passage,  no  reference  to  the  Son  of  man, 
but  the  statement  that  all  other  blasphemies  (except  that 
against  the  Holy  Spirit)  "shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of 
men  "  (3  :  28).  3  Mk.  2  :  10 ;  Matt.  9 : 6  ;  Lk.  5 :  24. 

*  Mk.  2  :  28 ;  Matt.  12:8;  Lk.  6  : 5. 

6  Matt.  11  :  19 ;  Lk.  7  :  34.         «  Matt.  13 :  37.         '  Lk.  19 :  10. 


/  PC   neCLU&VLU  '  /O/rU  :>      '  f>^   ^^rfu^zutouu  ^/T7f.fjjK, 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  87 

iifted  up  on  the  cross ;  ^  on  the  other,  the  Son  of  man 
is  to  be  exalted  and  to  reign  in  power  and  glory,^  has 
luthority  to  execute  judgment,^  and  bestows  the  gift  of 
spiritual  life  upon  men.''  He  is  the  One  upon  whom" 
the  angels  of  God,  as  in  Jacob's  dream,  shall  descend.* 
He  is,  moreover,  the  man  who  came  down  from  heaven 
and  who  belongs  to  heaven  as  his  native  sphere.^  In 
the  one  other  New  Testament  passage  where  the  title 
occurs,'  it  is  associated  with  the  heavenly  glory  of 
Christ.  From  the  use  of  the  term,  then,  outside  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  we  gain  the  impression  that  the 
phrase  was,  at  once,  a  designation  of  One  who  was 
destined  to  suffer  and  die  and  a  title  of  majesty.  As 
in  the  Synoptics,  the  Son  of  man  must  be  despised 
rejected,  and  put  to  death,  but  from  this  humiliation 
and  death  he  will  arise,  ascend  to  heaven,  be  clothed 
with  power  and  glory,  and  return  to  earth  in  majesty 
to  judge  the  world. 

In  the  light  of  the  facts  which  we  have  reviewed.  Theories  as 
what  meaning  are  we  to  attach  to  the  phrase  "the 
Son  of  man"?  What  aspect  of  Christ's  person  and 
work  does  it  denote  and  emphasize  ?  At  least  a  score 
of  answers  have  been  given  to  this  question.  All  the 
replies  which  are  sufficiently  influential  to-day  to 
warrant  their  consideration  here  may  be  grouped 
under  four  general   types. 

(1)  "The  Son  of  man"  denotes  the  ideal,  repre-   (i)  The 
sentative  man,  "to  whom  nothing  human  is  foreign."^  ideal  man. 

(2)  The  title  emphasizes,  especially,  Jesus'  lowli- 

ijn.  3:14.    Cf.  8:28;  12:34. 

2Jn.  6:62;  12:23;  13:31. 

8  Jn.  5 :  27.  *  Jn.  6  :  27,  35.  «  Jn.  1 :  51. 

6  Jn.  3 :  13.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  phrase 
"  who  is  in  heaven,"  found  in  the  Textus  Receptus,  is  omitted 
by  the  best  manuscripts.  ^  Acts  7 :  56. 

8  So,  e.g.,  Neander,  Baur,  Reuss,  Stanton. 


88 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


(2)  The 
lowly  and 
suffering 
man. 


(3)  Simply 
a  man. 


ness,  weakness,  and  liability  to  suffering  and  death.^ 
Eeference  is  made  in  defending  this  view  to  the  Old 
Testament  use  of  the  phrase  in  the  Prophets  and 
Psalms  as  a  name  for  man  in  contrast  with  God. 

(3)  The  phrase  means  simply  "man"  or  "a  man," 
and,  as  Jesus  used  it,  was  not  a  title  at  all.  In  the 
Gospels  it  is  a  mechanical  imitation  of  the  Aramaic 
term  barnasha  ("  a  Son  of  man  ")  which  was  the  only 
expression  in  the  Galilean  vernacular  for  "man,"  and 
which  had  no  other  meaning.'' 


1  So  Nosgen,  Wendt. 

2  A  Dutch  theologian,  Uloth,  broached  this  "Aramaic  the- 
ory "  in  1862.  From  linguistic  considerations  he  reached  essen- 
tially the  same  conclusion  which  had  been  held  by  Paulus  and 
Strauss,  that  "Son  of  man"  means  simply  a  man,  a  weak, 
humble  creature.  In  1894  Eerdmans  and  Wellhausen  espoused 
a  similar  view,  the  former  arguing  that  "the  Son  of  man," 
being  the  equivalent  of  the  quite  indefinite  Aramaic  barnasha, 
could  not  be  a  Messianic  title ;  the  latter,  that  it  was  a  mis- 
translation of  the  Aramaic  term  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Hellen- 
ists did  not  understand  that  barnasha  meant  simply  6  Sivdpwiros. 
This  view  has  been  further  elaborated,  with  variations,  by 
N.  Schmidt  {Jour,  of  Bib.  Lit.,  Vol.  XV,  1896),  H.  Lietzmann 
{Der  Menschensohn,  1896),  and  Wellhausen  (Skizzen  und 
Vorarbeiten,  1899).  The  argument  is  now  carried  out  to  the 
point  of  asserting  that  Jesus  never  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah 
at  all,  and  that  all  the  passages  in  which  "the  Son  of  man" 
bears  a  Messianic  meaning  are  to  be  rejected,  and  regarded  as 
the  product  of  the  reflection  of  his  disciples,  who  imported  into 
his  words  a  Messianic  meaning.  This  conclusion  is  also  de- 
fended, with  other  arguments,  by  Martineau'  (The  Seat  of 
Authority  in  Religion,  1891).  The  Messianic  import  of  the 
title  "the  Son  of  man  "  for  Jesus,  is  maintained,  on  linguistic 
grounds,  by  Dalman  {Die  Worte  Jesu,  1898)  and  Gunkel 
(Zeitschr.  fur  wissensch.  Theol.,  October,  1899).  Gunkel  con- 
tends that  barnasha  was  an  apocalyptic  Messianic  title,  and 
that  there  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to  assert  that  the  Synoptic 
passages  in  which  "  the  Son  of  man  "  bears  a  Messianic  signifi- 
cance are  foreign  to  the  thoughts  or  to  the  original  expressions 
of  Jesus.     Cf.  Stalker,  The  Christology  of  Jesus,  pp.  74,  75 ; 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


89 


(4)  "  The  Son  of  man  "  is  a  Messianic  title,  proba- 
bly not  widely  current  among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Jesus,  but  just  on  that  account  the  better  adapted  to 
the  use  of  Jesus,  who  did  not  wish,  at  first,  to  proclaim 
his  Messiahship.  By  it  Jesus  designates  himself  as  the 
Head  and  Founder  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.^ 

It  is  obvious  that  not  all  these  theories  are  mutually 
exclusive.  The  first  and  second,  for  example,  may  be 
mere  varieties  of  the  fourth,  on  the  supposition  that 
the  ideality  of  Jesus'  manhood,  or  his  lowly  and  suf- 
fering life,  is  the  aspect  of  his  Messiahship  which  the 
title  especially  emphasizes.  The  first  of  these  views 
makes  much  of  the  passage  in  which  Jesus  says  that 
because  the  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  therefore  the 
Son  of  man  is  lord  of  the  sabbath.^  The  argument 
is:  He  who  represents  man's  interests  comprehends 
in  his  province  the  sabbath  as  a  means  to  the  ends  of 
human  well-being.  The  second  view  builds  chiefly 
upon  the  first  group  of  texts  which  we  cited  from  the 
Synoptics.  The  objection  to  both  these  theories  is 
that  they  cover  but  a  portion  of  the  facts.  The  "  ideal 
man"  theory,  moreover,  has  a  suspiciously  modern 
look.  The  second  explanation  does  not  take  suffi- 
ciently into  account  or  furnish  any  explanation  for 
the  counterpart  of  the  passages  describing  humility 
and  suffering,  namely,  those  which  depict  the  dignity, 
glory,  and  dominion  of  the  Son  of  man.  Both  these 
theories,  while  containing  elements  of  truth,  are  too 
narrow  to  fit  or  to  account  for  all  the  facts  demanding 
explanation. 


Possible 
combina- 
tions of 
these 
theories. 


Krop,  "La  Question  du  Fils  de  PHomme,"  in  his  book,  La 
Pensee  de  Jesus  sur  le  Royaume  de  Dieu,  1897  ;  J.  Weiss,  Die 
Predigt  Jesu  vom  Beiche  Gottes  (2te,  Aufl.,  1900),  pp.  169-175. 

1  So,  with  variations  on  particular  points,  Weiss,  Beyschlag, 
Holtzmann,  Baldensperger,  Charles,  Stalker. 

2  Mk.  2 :  27,  28. 


90 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


The 

"  Aramaic 
theory  "still 
in  dispute. 


Does  not 
disprove 
that  Jesus 
claimed  to 
be  the 
Messiah. 


Apocalyptic 
basis  for  a 
Messianic 
usage. 


The  third  theory  is  still  under  vigorous  discussion, 
and  the  result  of  the  controversy  cannot  be  predicted. 
It  involves  the  effort  to  determine  of  what  term  (if 
any)  in  the  Aramaic  language,  which  Jesus  spoke,  the 
Greek  title  6  vtos  tov  avOpujirov  {"  the  Son  of  man  ")  was 
a  translation,  and  what  the  force  of  that  original  Ara- 
maic term  was.  In  its  latest  phase  the  discussion 
involves  the  whole  question  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  since  several  scholars  have  sought  to  prove  that 
Jesus'  Aramaic  self-designation  barnasha  (Son  of  man) 
cannot  be  a  Messianic  title.  Respecting  this  vexed 
and  difficult  question  I  must  content  myself  with  fur- 
nishing the  reader  the  foregoing  references  to  the  lit- 
erature of  the  subject  and  with  adding  the  following 
remarks :  — 

(1)  Assuming  that  Jesus  called  himself  barnashaj 
and  that  this  term  means  only  man,  and  is  not  a 
Messianic  title,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  he 
was  not  and  did  not  claim  to  be  the  Messiah.  One 
finds  the  Messianic  idea  connected  with  Jesus  every- 
where throughout  our  Gospels.  He  is  baptized, 
tempted,  rides  triumphantly  into  Jerusalem,  suffers, 
dies,  and  rises  as  the  Messiah.  It  is  necessary  to  dis- 
prove, not  merely  the  Messianic  import  of  the  Aramaic 
counterpart  of  the  "  Son  of  man,"  but  the  whole  gospel 
picture  of  Jesus,  if  his  consciousness  of  being  the 
Messiah  is  to  be  disproved. 

(2)  Since  we  know  from  Jewish  apocalyptic  usage  ^ 
that  the  idea  of  "  the  One  like  unto  a  son  of  man "  ^ 

1  Book  of  Enoch,  46  ;  2  Esdras  13  (also  called  4  Esdras  and 
Apocalypse  of  Esdras,  or  Ezra),  where  a  vision  of  "  the  man  " 
rising  up  out  of  the  sea  is  described.  In  the  explanation  of 
the  vision,  "the  man"  is  said  to  be  the  One  through  whom 
God  will  redeem  his  people.  "The  man"  is  also  called  God's 
"  Son  "  in  the  same  explanation. 

2  Dan.  7  :  13.     Cf .  Rev.  1  :  13  :  14  :  14. 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  91 

played  a  prominent  role  in  the  development  of  Mes- 
sianic thought  and  language,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  term  itself  should  furnish  a  designation  for 
the  Messiah.  Nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  sup- 
pose that  since  the  passage  in  Daniel  was  regarded  by 
the  Jews  as  referring  to  the  Messiah  personally,  the 
phrase  descriptive  of  him  should  have  been  shortened, 
and  the  Messiah  himself  spoken  of  as  "  the  Son  of 
man."  We  know  that  this  usage  existed  in  the  first 
Christian  century ;  it  would  require  positive  proof  to 
the  contrary  to  show  that  it  might  not  have  existed 
in  Jesus'  time.  Such  a  Messianic  designation  could 
most  easily  arise  in  consequence  of  the  Danielle 
passage. 

(3)  It  is,  therefore,  far  from  proven  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  expressed  his  Messianic  consciousness 
and  claim  in  his  native  language  and  even  have  used 
the  word  barnasha  for  the  purpose.  He  might  have 
meant  by  it  the  man  whom  the  Jewish  mind  saw  pic- 
tured in  Daniel  as  taking  to  himself  dominion  and 
founding  an  imperishable  kingdom. 

(4)  The  positive  and  abundant  evidence  of  the 
Gospels  to  the  effect  that  Jesus  used  "  the  Son  of  man" 
(or  its  equivalent)  to  designate  an  official  peculiarity 
(to  claim  no  more)  of  his  person  and  work  is  not  to  be 
set  aside  by  mere  conjectures  as  to  a  supposed  use  of 
Aramaic  words.  That  is  to  make  the  worse  appear 
the  better  reason.  All  the  New  Testament  represen- 
tations agree  in  assigning  to  the  title  in  question  a 
special  official  significance ;  it  requires  much  more 
than  an  argument  from  the  silence  of  Paul  and  the 
citation  of  passages  exhibiting  the  lexical  meaning  of 
barnasha  to  break  the  force  of  that  fact. 

>-    We  venture  then  to  adhere  still  to  the  view  that  the  The 

title  "the  Son  of  man"  was  a  Messianic  designation  f eive^d  vie w! 

'for  Jesus  himself,  as  it  was  for  those  who  preserved 


92 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


and  shaped  our  Synoptic  tradition.  That  this  is  its 
import  on  the  face  of  the  Gospels  does  not  admit  of 
reasonable  doubt.  The  Messianic  interpretation  best 
accounts  for  all  the  facts.  The  various  tasks,  prerog- 
atives, and  experiences  which  are  ascribed  to  the  Son 
of  man  are  all  aspects  or  parts  of  the  Messiah's  char- 
acter and  work.^  The  fulfilling  of  the  law  as  illustrated 
in  declaring  the  true  nature  and  use  of  the  sabbath, 
the  lowly  endurance  of  poverty  and  suffering,  and  the 
final  kingly  triumph  over  the  world,  are  all  consonant 
with  Jesus'  conception  of  his  Messianic  experience  and 
work.  The  theory  in  question  harmonizes  the  appar- 
ently opposite  representations  in  the  Gospels.  The 
feon  of  man  is  the  lowly  and  suffering  One  who  came 
ko  minister.  It  was  essential  in  Jesus'  conception  of 
pis  Messianic  calling  that  he  should  tread  the  path  of 
[humiliation  and  descend  into  the  valley  of  death ;  but 
he  was  also  sure  that  by  the  way  of  the  cross  he  should 
come  to  his  glory  and  his  crown.  In  both  he  was  ful- 
filling the  will  of  the  Father.  The  Messianic  idea  of 
the  Jews  of  his  time  was  surrounded  only  with  asso- 
ciations of  majesty  and  victory;  he  also  saw  a  throne 
as  the  goal  of  his  work,  but  it  was  the  throne  of  One 
who  should  stoop  to  conquer,  the  greatness  which  is 


1  Speaking  of  the  theory  of  Wellhausen  and  others,  Harnack 
"  Ich  vermag  dem  aber  nicht  beizustimmen,  ja  ich  finde, 
dass  man  unsere  evangelischen  Berichte  aus  den  Angeln  heben 
muss,  um  das  Gewiinschte  zu  erreichen.  .  .  .  Eine  Geschichte 
wie  die  des  Einziigs  Christi  in  Jerusalem  mtisste  man  einfach 
streiehen,  um  die  These  durchzufiihren,  er  habe  sich  nicht  fiir 
den  verheissenen  Messias  gehalten  und  auch  nicht  dafiir  gelten 
wollen.  Dazu  kommt  dass  die  Formen,  in  denen  Jesus  sein 
Selbstbewusstsein  und  seinen  Beruf  zum  Ausdruck  gebracht 
hat,  ganz  unverstandlich  werden,  wenn  sie  nicht  durch  die 
messianische  Idee  bestimmt  gewesen  sind."  —  Das  Wesen  des 
Christentums,  pp.  82,  83.  Cf .  Cone,  The  Gospel  and  Us  Earliest 
Interpretations,  pp.  96  sq. 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  93 

fthe  reward  of  service,  the  exaltation  which  is  won  by 
jhumility. 

It  is  probable  that  the  title  "  Son  of  man"  as  a  Mes-  The  root  of 
sianic  designation  is  derived  from  the  Book  of  Daniel,  ante  usage 
The  equivalence  of  the  terms  "  Son  of  man  "  and  "  One  i^  Daniel, 
like  unto  a  son  of  man  "  in  other  Jewish  apocalyptic 
books  favors  this  supposition.  The  fact  that  Daniel 
vvas  the  great  model  of  the  apocalyptic  writing  and 
thinking  which  were  so  prevalent  in  Judaism  during 
the  last  150  years  before  Christ  and  on  through  the 
ipostolic  period  lends  strong  probability  to  this  con- 
clusion. If  this  view  is  correct,  then  the  term  was, 
no  doubt,  one  of  the  technical  terms  of  Jewish  apoc- 
alyptic. With  this  agrees  its  use  in  the  apocalyptic 
Books  of  Enoch  and  Second  Esdras.  In  the  line  ofi 
this  usage,  also,  is  the  frequent  employment  of  thej 
term  in  our  Gospels  in  connection  with  Christ's  parou-j 
sia  —  his  return  to  earth  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  ini 
jreat  power  and  glory,  surrounded  by  myriads  ot 
ingels.  This  was,  indeed,  its  only  original  importj 
in  the  view  of  those  scholars  who  think  that  Jesus* 
own  idea  of  his  kingdom  was  the  current  Jewish  idea 
of  a  future  world-empire  to  be  suddenly  inaugurated 
by  some  striking  intervention  of  God.  I  have  already 
sought  to  show  that  this,  according  to  our  sources,  was 
not  Jesus'  idea  of  his  kingdom.  We  have  also  seed 
that  the  apocalyptic  associations  of  the  term  "  Son  oi 
man"  are  not  its  only  associations  in  the  Gospels.  The 
Son  of  man  teaches,  serves,  suffers,  and  dies,  as  well  as 
triumphs  and  reigns.  ' 

The  most  reasonable  conclusion  is  that  Jesus'  idea  Conclusion, 
of  his  Messiahship  was  not  narrow  and  single,  but 
broad  and  many-sided,  and  that  just  as  his  idea  of  the 
kingdom  included  its  present  imperfect  stages  as  well 
as  its  future  greatness  and  victory,  so  the  title  "  Son  of 
man  "  comprehended  for  his  mind  the  various  tasks  and 


94  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

[experiences  of  his  life  on  earth  which  were  to  him  the 
(conditions  of  the  victory  which  was  to  follow.  No 
supposition  is  more  misleading  or  more  contrary  to 
the  evidence  than  the  supposition  that  Jesus  must 
have  meant  by  the  terms  which  he  used  just  what  the 
popular  thought  of  the  time  meant  by  them.  He  is 
likely  to  mean  more  ;  he  is  certain  to  mean  something 
higher.  Indeed,  what  strikes  one  most  in  studying 
Jesus'  teaching  is  the  contrast  between  his  meaning 
in  the  use  of  words  and  that  which  was  common  in 
his  age. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   SON    OF    GOD^ 

The  term  "  son  of  God  "  meets  us  frequently  on  the  "  Son  of 
pages  of  the  Old  Testament.     It  is  natural,  therefore,  qJJ^  "  ^^  *^® 
to  seek  some  point  of  connection  between  this  Jewish  Testament, 
usage  and  the  meaning  of  the  title  as  applied  to  Jesus. 
In  the   Old  Testament  we  find  that  angels,^  magis- 
trates,^ individual  Israelites,*  the  theocratic  king,^  and 
the  nation  as  a  whole,^  are  designated  by  this  title. 
The  general  idea  underlying  this  usage  is  clear.     A  itsunderly- 
"  son  of  God  "  is  one  who  is  the  special  object  of  God's  ^°^  ^^^^' 
favor.     As  God's  chosen  people,  the  nation  of  Israel 
was  God's  "  son  "  whom  he  had  delivered  from  Egypt ' 
and  led  and  trained  for  a  special  mission  in  history.^ 
In  a  preeminent  sense  is  the  king,  as  the  head  of  the 
nation  and  a  type  of  the  Messiah,  a  "  son  of  God."    It 
is  easy  to  see  how  the  people  who  constituted  the 
elect  nation,  and   especially  its   representative  men, 

1  General  References  :  Besides  the  N.  T.  Theologies  and  the 
works  of  Wendt  (II,  124-136)  and  Bruce  (ch.  vii),  already  fre- 
quently cited,  see  the  article  "Son  of  God,"  in  Hastings'  B.  D.; 
Stalker,  Christology  of  Jesus,  ch.  iii ;  Stevens,  The  Johannine 
Theology,  ch.  ii ;  Harnack,  "  Das  Evangelium  und  der  Gottes- 
sohn,"  in  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  pp.  79-92 ;  Adamson, 
The  Mind  in  Christ  ;  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  ch.  x  (a  techni- 
cal discussion  of  the  title,  with  many  references  to  the  critical 
literature  of  the  subject).  2  Qen.  6 :  \-A. 

8  Ps.  82  : 6,  7  ;  Ex.  22  :  28.  «  Ex.  4  ;  22 ;  Deut.  22  :  6-10. 

4Deut.  14:1,  2.  'Hos.  11:1. 

6  2  Sam.  7  :  14  ;  Ps.  2  : 7  ;  89 :  27.  8  Deut.  1 :  31 ;  8  :  5. 

95 


96 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


In  the  later 

Jewish 

literature. 


Old 

Testament 
idea  in  the 
Synoptics. 


should  be  regarded  as  uniquely  loved  and  favored  by 
Jehovah.  Hence  Paul  summarizes  the  Old  Testament 
representations  of  this  love  and  favor  in  the  assurance 
spoken  by  Jehovah  to  Israel :  "  I  will  be  a  Father 
unto  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daughters,  saith 
the  Lord  Almighty."  ^ 

In  the  later  Jewish  apocryphal  books  "the  Son  of 
God "  is  employed  as  a  synonym  for  the  Messiah. 
The  collocation  "  my  Son,  the  Messiah "  occurs  in 
2  Esdras  7 :  28,  29.^  This  distinctly  Messianic  use  of 
the  title  is  quite  natural  in  view  of  the  generic  idea 
conveyed  by  the  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament.^  The 
Messiah,  as  the  antitypical  King  of  Israel,  the  Founder 
of  the  heavenly  kingdom  of  God  among  men,  the  One 
whom  God  specially  chooses,  sends,  and  equips  for  his 
revealing  and  saving  work,  is  preeminently  God's  Son. 
When  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament  we  find  that  these 
are  precisely  the  ideas  in  which  the  Christian  use  of 
the  phrase  has  its  roots."* 

There  are  two  passages,  common  to  all  three  Synop- 
tists,  in  which  the  Old  Testament  idea  is  reproduced 
with  some  resemblance  to  the  later  apocalyptic  usage, 
namely,  the  heavenly  voices  which  spoke  at  Jesus' 

1  2  Cor.  6  :  18. 

a  Cf.  "  my  Son  "  in  2  Esdras  14 : 9,  and  in  Enoch  105 :  2. 

«  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  pp.  219-224,  points  out  that  the 
address  of  Jehovah  to  the  Messianic  king  in  Ps.  2:7,  "Thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  was  the  point  of 
departure  for  the  development  of  the  Messianic  use  of  the  title 
♦'Son  of  God"  (cf.  Ps.  89:26).  This  passage,  then,  stands 
related  to  the  New  Testament  use  of  "the  Son  of  God"  very 
much  as  Dan.  7  :  13  does  to  the  use  of  "the  Son  of  man," 

*  See  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  221,  and  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch, 
ad.  loc,  105 : 2.  Second  Esdras  is,  indeed,  later  than  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  the  relevant  passages  in  the  Book  of  Enoch  are 
of  uncertain  date.  But  the  passages  quoted  illustrate  Jewish 
usage,  and  almost  certainly  reflect  a  Messianic  application  of 
the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  in  pre-Christian  Judaism. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  97 

baptism  and  transfiguration :  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  the 
beloved,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased."  ^  "  This  is  my 
Son,  the  beloved,  hear  ye  him."  ^  It  is  evident  from^ 
these  passages  that  "my  Son"  is  synonymous  with 
"  my  beloved,"  "  my  chosen  One,"  that  is,  the  Messiah 
considered  as  the  special  object  of  God's  favor  and  the 
bearer  of  a  special  revelation  from  him  to  men. 

In  another  group  of  passages  Jesus  is  addressed  by  its  use  by 
the  demoniacs  as  the  "Son  of  God"  or  "the  Son  ofl  Jg^^,j^j^^,g^ 
the  Most  High  God."  ^  Whatever  vague  or  pervertedl 
notions  these  victims  of  possession  associated  with 
the  title,  it  is  obvious  that  it  was  a  name  for  One  of 
superior  authority  and  power,  and  that,  whether  con- 
sciously used  to  denote  the  Messiah  or  not,  it  com- 
prehended prerogatives  which  were  a  part  of  the 
Messianic  vocation.* 

The  use  of  the  term  by  those  who  were  hostile  to  inthenarra- 
the  purpose  of  Christ  illustrates  what  differing  aspects  temptation, 
of  his  alleged  Messiahship  the  term  covered  for  those 
who  employed  it.  In  the  narrative  of  the  temptatioii 
Satan  is  introduced  as  the  evil  world-spirit  in  whoml 
the  gross  and  worldly  tendencies  of  popular  Jewislij 
Messianism  is  embodied.  Accordingly,  he  challenges 
Jesus  to  prove  that  he  really  is  the  Son  of  God  b] 
turning  stones  into  bread.*  The  common  expectatioi 
was  that  the  Messiah  should  attest  his  claims  by  star-j 
tling  exhibitions  of  supernatural  power. 

At  the  trial  of  Jesus,  after  the  accusations  had  been  Used  by  the 
made  against  him,  the  high  priest  bade  him  declare  ^^g^P^^st. 


n . 


1  Matt.  3 :  17 ;  Mk.  1 :  11 ;  Lk.  3:  22. 

'Mk.  9:7.     Luke   (9:35)  has:    "my  Son,   my  chosen 
Matthew  (17  :5)  :  "my  Son,  the  beloved,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased  ;  hear  ye  him." 

«  Mk.  3  :  11  ;  5:7;  Matt.  8 :  29 ;  Lk.  8 :  28. 

*  See  the  summary  of  Messiah's  works  in  Lk.  7  :  22  (Matt« 
11 : 6).  6  Matt.  4 :  3  ;  Lk.  4 :  3. 


98  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

hfhetheT  or  not  he  was  "the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
jBlessed,"  ^  where  it  is  evident  that  "  the  Christ "  and 
\'  the  Son  of  God  "  have  essentially  the  same  meaning. 
In  like  manner,  he  is  challenged  by  his  murderers  to 
save  himself  from  death  and  to  come  down  from  the 
cross,  if  he  really  is  "  the  Christ  of  God,"  ^  or,  "  the 
Son  of  God  "  ^ ;  and  when  he  bowed  his  head  and  gave 
up  his  spirit,*  the  Roman  centurion  who  stood  among 
those  who  were  watching  Jesus  exclaimed :  "  Truly 
this  was  God's  Son,"*  meaning  that  he  was  in  some 
exceptional  manner  favored  and  sustained  by  God,® 
perhaps  that  he  was  some  kind  of  hero  or  demigod. 
Its  use  by  Let  US  next  observe  the  use  of  the  title  attributed 

disciples.  *^  Jesus'  own  disciples.  The  classic  passage  under 
this  head  is  Peter's  confession  at  Csesarea  Philippi. 
Jesus  asked  his  disciples,  "  Who  do  men  say  that  I 
am  ?  "  and  they  quoted  to  him  the  various  replies  which 
they  had  heard.  Then  he  asked  them,  "But  who 
say  ye  that  I  am  ?  "  and  Peter  answered,  "  Thou  art 
the  Christ,"  ^  or,  according  to  Matthew,  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."^  With  this  say- 
ing may  be  compared  the  exclamation  of  the  disciples 
after  the  walking  upon  the  sea:  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art 
the  Son  of  God."^  If  these  uses  of  the  title  be  re- 
garded as  amplifications  by  the  first  Evangelist,^*'  they 
show,  at  any  rate,  how  closely  synonymous  with  Mes- 
siah the  title  in  question  was  for  the  early  Church, 
emphasized  the  character  of  Jesus  as  the  unique  Me 
senger  and  Revealer  of  God. 


!S- 

1 


iMk.  14:61;  Matt.  26:63. 

2  Lk.  23:35.  *Lk.  19:30. 

8  Matt.  27 :  40.  »  Mk.  15  :  39 ;  Matt.  27  :  54. 

6  Luke  has  the  more  general  expression,  "  Certainly  this 
was  a  righteous  man  "  (23 :  47). 

7  Mk.  8 :  29.  8  Matt.  16  :  16.  »  Matt.  14 :  33. 
i»  So  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu^  pp.  224,  225. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  99 

In  but  one  place  in  the  Synoptics  ^  is  the  use  of  the  Jesus'  own 
full  title  "the  Son  of  God'^  attributed  to  Jesus.  At  Stle?**^"" 
the  crucifixion  his  murderers  taunt  him  who,  they  say, 
called  himself  the  Son  of  God,  with  his  helplessness. 
Prom  other  passages,  however,  it  is  clear  that  Jesus 
accepted  the  title  as  applicable  to  himself.  He  is  the 
"  beloved  son "  of  the  parable  of  the  Vineyard,^  as 
he  is  the  "  King's  son  "  for  whom  the  marriage  feast 
was  made.*  Still  more  direct  is  his  claim  to  the  title 
in  the  passages  where  he  calls  himself  "  the  Son  "  in 
relation  to  "the  Father,"*  especially  in  the  striking 
saying:  "All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  oft 
my  Father:  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  tha 
Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  tha 
Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal 
him."*  ^ 

Quite  in  accord  with  this  passage  we  find  that  Jesus,  Jesus'  son- 

in  speaking  of  God  to  the  people,  or  even  to  his  own  guished*^"" 

disciples,  never  uses  the  term  "our  Father,"  as  if  God  from  that  of 

•  others 

were  his  Father  and  theirs  in  the  same  sense.     He  says, 

"my   Father"   and  "your  Father,"  but   never  "our 

Father."     He  knew  himself  as  God's  Son,   and  he 

recognized  the  sonship  of  other  men  to  God,  but  these 

two  sonships  are  never  placed  on  an  equality.     The 

inference  is  inevitable  that  he  knew  himself  as  God's 

Son  in  some  unique  sense.     Other  men  become  sons  oi ' 

God ;   he  is  the  Son  of  God  without  qualification  oi 

condition.  ' 

These  facts  pave  the  way  easily  and  naturally  to  the  Use  of  the 

usage  of  the  fourth  Gospel.      There  Jesus   is   com-  foSti"  *^^^ 

pared  to  an  only  begotten  son  of  a  Father®  and  is  Gospel. 


1  Matt.  27 :  43.  2  Mk.  12 ;  6  ;  Lk.  20 :  13 ;  Matt.  21 :  37. 

»  Matt.  22 :  2.  *  Mk.  13 :  32 ;  Matt.  24 :  36. 

6  Matt.  11:27;  Lk.  10:22. 

*  Jn.  1:14,  w$  fxouoyevovs  irapk  varpbi. 


tions. 


100  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

directly  called  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.^  The 
term  "only  begotten '^  is,  as  the  comparison  just  noted 
shows,  a  figure  of  speech  drawn  from  human  relations 
in  order  to  emphasize  the  peculiar  closeness  and  unique- 
ness of  Jesus'  relation  to  God.  He  is  to  God  what  an 
jonly  son  is  to  a  father  —  one  uniquely  loved  and  sus- 
taining relations  of  peculiar  intimacy  and  union.^  More 
than  thirty  times  in  this  Gospel  is  Jesus  designated  as 
"the  Son  of  God"  or  "the  Son"  in  such  a  way  as  to 
accentuate  his  special  relation  to  the  Father  and  his 
special  commission  from  God  as  the  Bearer  of  life  to 
the  world. 
lUustra-  Characteristic  statements  of  the  mission  and  prerogar 

tives  of  "  the  Son  "  are  seen  in  such  passages  as  these : 
"  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  sent  not  the 
Son  into  the  world  to  judge  the  world ;  but  that  the 
world  should  be  saved  through  him.  He  that  believeth 
on  him  is  not  judged :  he  that  believeth  not  hath  been 
judged  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  on  the 
name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."  ^  "  Jesus 
therefore  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but 
what  he  seeth  the  Father  doing :  for  what  things  so- 
ever he  doeth,  these  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner. 
For  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  him  all 
things  that  himself  doeth:  and  greater  works  than 
these  will  he  shew  him,  that  ye  may  marvel.  For  as 
the  Father  raiseth  the  dead  and  quickeneth  them,  even 
so  the  Son  also  quickeneth  whom  he  will.  For  neither 
doth  the  Father  judge  any  man,  but  he  hath  given  all 

iJn.  1:18;  3:16,  18. 

2  Cf.  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  who  says  that  6  vlbi  6  &yairr)T6s  and  6 
vlbi  6  novoyevifis  have  the  same  meaning. 
«  Jn.  3  :  16-18. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  101 

judgement  unto  the  Son ;  that  all  may  honour  the  Son, 
even  as  they  honour  the  Father.     He  that  honoureth 
not  the  Son  honoureth  not  the  Father  who  sent  him."  ^ 
"  I  and  the  Father  are  one."''     "  Believe  me  that  I  am 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me."  ^    It  is  clear  The  Son 
ihat  the  Son  is  here  described  as  the  Saviour,  the  goJ  ufmen 
'"icegerent  of  God,  and  the  Executor  alike  of  his 
jracious  will  and  of  his  judicial  purpose  toward  man- 
:ind.     He  so  represents  the  Father,  so  reveals  the 
jPather^s  will  and  nature,  that  in  him  men  see  God 
[disclosed  to  them,*  and  their  treatment  of  him  is  the 
f  est  of  their  attitude  toward  God.* 

If,  now,  we  glance  back  over  the  facts  which  have  Resume  of 
been  adduced,  and  try  to  grasp  their  meaning  for  the  [J®  Goslfei? 
person  and  claims  of  Jesus,  we  shall  see  that  the  term 
under  discussion  has  a  clear  point  of  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament  usage  which  designated  as  sons  of 
God  those  who  stood  in  specially  close  relations  with 
God,  or  were  the  objects  of  his  peculiar  love  and  favor. 
(A-S  such  the  title  appropriately  designates  Jesus  in  his 
character  as  the  Messiah,  the  Messenger  of  the  cove- 
pant  to  Israel.  The  Messiah  is  by  preeminence  "the 
Son  of  God."  But  as  the  Jewish  category  of  Messiah- 
ship  could  never  contain  Jesus'  whole  conception  of 
his  own  person  and  work,  so  "the  Son  of  God"  could 
not  have  been  conterminous  in  his  mind  with  "the 
Messiah."  Terms  which  are  synonymous  are  seldom, 
if  ever,  identical  in  meaning  and  content.  Both  the 
Synoptic  and  the  Johannine  reports  of  Jesus'  teaching 
require  us  to  suppose  that  the  sonship  to  God  which 
he  claimed  was  not  so  much  an  official  as  a  personal 
relation.    To  the  mind  of  Jesus  his  sonship  designated, 

ijn.  5:19-23.  2  jn.  10:30. 

«Jn.  14:11.    Cf.  10:38. 

*  Jn.  14 : 9,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.'* 

*  Jn.  16  :  23,  "  He  that  hateth  me  hateth  my  Father  also." 


102 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Traces  of 
narrower 
and  lower 
views  of 
Christ's 
Son ship. 


Jesus*  doc- 
trine of  his 
Sonship  dis- 
tinguished 
from  that  of 
theological 
speculation. 


not  primarily  a  historic  function,  but  an  intimate  fel- 
lowship and  union  with  God.  This  unique  reciprocal 
knowledge  between  himself  and  the  Father,  and  the 
inscrutable  union  upon  which  it  was  founded,  was,  foi 
the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  the  basis  and  conditio! 
precedent  of  his  historic  mission.  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah  because  he  was  par  Eminence  the  Son  of  God. 

Certain  passages  in  our  Synoptic  tradition  illustrate 
a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  early  Christians  to  limit 
the  notion  of  Jesus'  sonship  to  his  Messiahship,^  or  to 
make  it  a  name  for  the  Worker  of  wonders,^  or  to 
associate  with  it  the  idea  of  a  supernatural  genera- 
tion.^ Such  applications  of  the  idea  were  certainly 
most  natural,  but  the  Synoptics  themselves,  no  less 
than  the  fourth  Gospel,  furnish  us  the  data  for 
transcending  them.  No  such  conceptions  were  pri- 
mary in  Jesus'  own  consciousness  of  his  sonship  to 
God.  The  Godward  relation  which  he  sustained,— 
his  unique  union  with  God  which  enabled  him  to  be 
the  Eevealer  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men,  —  this 
it  was  which  constituted  Jesus'  sonship  to  God. 

Such  considerations  as  the  foregoing  bring  us  to  the 
borders  of  the  problem  of  the  person  of  Christ  beyond 
which  our  present  purpose  does  not  require  ns  to  pur- 
sue the  subject.  One  thing  is  clear:  it  was  not  the 
purpose  of  Jesus  to  furnish  the  materials  for  a  specu- 
lative theory  of  his  person.    He  required  of  those  who 

,  1  E.g.  Matt.  2 :  15 ;  16 :  16.  2  Matt.  14 :  13. 

8  Lk.  1 :  35.  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  236,  237,  distinguishes  the 
Synoptists'  and  Jesus'  idea  of  his  sonship  to  God  thus :  They, 
being  Hellenists,  associated  with  it  the  idea  "born  from  God," 
while  for  Jesus  it  denoted  his  present  personal  relation  to  God. 
He  concludes:  "Their  method  of  thought  is  Greek;  his  is 
Semitic."  The  distinction  is  interesting,  and  has  a  certain 
basis  in  fact ;  but  it  would  be  quite  unwarranted  to  represent 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  unaware  of  other  and  higher  aspects 
of  Jesus'  sonship  to  God. 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  103 

loved  him,  not  the  framing  of  a  doctrine,  but  the  keepi 
ing  of  his  commandments,  the  doing  of  the  will  of  hia 
heavenly  Father.  His  great  claim  was  that  he  was 
sent  of  God  on  a  supreme  mission  of  revelation  and 
salvation  to  mankind.  He  came  to  teach  men  the  way 
of  God  in  truth  by  illustrating  alike  in  doctrine  and  in 
life  what  are  the  true  ideals  and  ends  of  human  exist- 
ence. He  further  recognized  his  dependence  upon  his 
Father,  whose  will  he  had  come  to  do.  To  him  he 
prayed,  and  to  his  holy  purpose  and  providence  he 
freely  subordinated  himself. 

This  is  one  side  of  the  picture  of  Jesus  which  is  The  paradox 
presented  to  us  in  the  Gospels  —  the  lowly  Son  of  person  and 
man,  praying,  obeying,  dependent,  suffering.     On  the  work, 
other  hand,  he  assumes  exemption  from  sin,  speaks 
with  a  divine  authority,  freely  revises  the  sacred  law 
of  Israel,  claims  the  prerogative  of  judgment,  and  pre- 
dicts his  victory  over  the  world.    Did  ever  any  charac- 
ter in  history  present  so  paradoxical  an  appearance  ? 
Is  it  any  wonTier  that  his  person  has  been  the  problem 
of  the  ages  ?     Here  is  a  mystery  which  the  researches 
and  speculations  of  centuries  have  been  unable  to  re- 
solve.    It  is  a  familiar  maxim  that  the  greatest  truths 
have  always  something  paradoxical  in  them ;  the  same 
holds  true  of  the  greatest  personality. 

The  Church  early  began  to  reflect  upon  the  problem  The  be- 
to  which  the  life  of  the  Master  gave  rise.     The  apos-  fpeciSve 
ties  and  their  associates  offered  no  solution  of  it  in  the  Christology. 
sense  in  which  modern  speculative  thought  attempts 
solutions  of  metaphysical  problems;  they  rather  ex- 
pressed their  convictions  concerning  certain  assump- 
tions which  the  facts  known  to  them  required.     They 
knew  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  true  man,  but  they  were 
sure  that  God  had  dwelt  and  wrought  in  and  through 
him  in  a  wholly  exceptional  manner.     To  the  mind  of 
the  Church  of  the  first  age  God  was  in  Christ  as  in  no 


104 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Terms  de- 
scriptive of 
Christ. 


other ;  he  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  the  reason, 
mind,  and  love  of  God  revealed  and  interpreted  in 
terms  of  human  life  and  experience.  The  first  Chris- 
tian thinkers  searched  the  vocabulary  of  their  age  for 
terms  in  which  to  express  their  sense  of  the  unique 
significance,  the  incomparable  value,  of  Christ.  They 
icalled  him  the  image  or  impress  of  God,^  the  first-born 
br  only  begotten  Son  of  God,^  the  outshining  of 
xhe  divine  majesty,^  the  Word,  the  self-expression,  the 
littered  Keason  of  God.^  They  called  him,  after  the 
knanner  of  the  sapiential  books  of  Judaism,  the  eternal 
jWisdom  of  God,  through  whose  cooperation  God  had 
fformed  the  worlds.*  By  such  terms  as  these,  which 
were  the  current  coin  of  the  Jewish  and  Alexandrian 
thought-worlds  of  the  period,  did  the  early  Christian 
teachers  express  the  results  of  their  reflections  and 
experiences  in  the  school  of  Christ.  The  roots  of  his 
being  were  in  God.  He  was  the  divine-human  per- 
sonality. He  was  at  once  the  interpretation  of  God 
to  man  and  of  man  to  himself.  In  him  the  nature, 
will,  and  world-purpose  of  God  stood  revealed.  He 
was  the  truth  of  God's  mind  and  feeling.  In  him 
men  saw  the  Father.  He  was  God's  self-expression  — 
the  translation  of  God  into  terms  of  humanity.** 


1  Col.  1:15;  Heb.  1:3.  8Heb.  1:3. 

2  Col.  1:15;  Jn.  1:18.  *Jn.  1:1,  14. 
6  1  Cor.  1 :  24  ;  Heb.  1:2;  Col.  1 :  16 ;  Jn.  1 :  3. 

*  "  Nur  von  einem  wissen  wir,  dass  die,  die  mit  ihm  gegessen 
und  getrunken  haben,  ilin  nicht  nur  als  ihren  Lehrer,  Proph- 
eten  und  Konig  gepriesen  haben,  sondern  als  den  Fiirsten  des 
Lebens,  als  den  Erloser  und  Weltrichter,  als  die  lebendige 
Kraft  ihres  Daseins,  — nicht  Ich  lebe,  sondern  Christus  lebet  in 
mir,  — und  dass  bald  mit  ihnen  ein  Chor  von  Juden  und  Heiden, 
von  Weisen  und  Thoren  bekannt  hat,  aus  der  Fiille  dieses  einen 
Mannes  Gnade  um  Gnade  zu  nehmen.  Diese  Thatsache,  die 
am  hellen  Tage  liegt,  ist  einzigartig  in  der  Geschichte,  und  sie 
verlangt,  dass  das  Factum  der  Person,  die  hinter  ihr  liegt,  als 


THE  SON  OF  GOD  105 

The  men  who  have  left  us  these  expressions  of  their  The  aim  of 
faith  on  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  did  not  pre-  xStamlnt 
sent  them  as  definitions  of  the  interior  mystery  of  Christoiogy. 
Deity  or  descriptions  of  the  constitution  of  Christ's 
person.     They  were  voicing  a  living  religious  convic- 
tion,  expressing   in   terms   of   their   own   age   what 
Christ  meant  to  them.     They  were  registering  their 
own  experience  of  his   revealing,  saving  power.     In 
the  glorious  mystery  of  his  life  and  death  they  found 
all  the  treasures  of  spiritual  wisdom  and  knowledge, 
but  they  were  "  hidden  "  treasures,^  which  could  never 
become  accessible,  as  Pascal  says,  to  mere  "curious 
intellect,"  but  only  "  to  the  eyes  of  the  heart  and  the 
eyes  which  see  wisdom."  ^ 

At  the  end  of  all  our  speculation,  on  the  summit  of  its  suffi- 
all  our  theological  theorizing,  we  can  do  no  better  than  gxpresshig 
to  adopt  the  language  of  the  early  Church  and  to  the  religious 
confess  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  revealed  Word,  oSS''® 
the  brightness  of  God's  glory  and  the  express  image 
of  his  person,  the  Power  of  God,  and  the  Wisdom  of 
God. 

ein  einzigartiges  respektiert  wird."  —  Harnack,  Das  Christen- 
tum  und  die  Geschichte,  p.  10. 

1  Col.  2:3.  2  Thoughts,  XIX,  1. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   VALUE   AND    DESTINY   OF    MAN  ^ 


Jesus'  esti- 
mate of  the 
value  of 
man. 


Even  of  the 
humblest. 


"What  shall  it  profit  a  man,  to  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  lose  his  own  soul/'  or,  as  Luke  has  it,  "  his 
own  self  ?  "  "  Or,  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange 
for  his  soul  ?  "  ^  What  price  would  be  adequate,  when 
once  the  soul  is  lost,  to  buy  it  back  ?  These  are  the 
words  which  best  reflect  Jesus'  estimate  of  the  worth 
of  man.  His  true  life  is  a  treasure  beyond  all  price. 
It  cannot  be  measured  by  material  values ;  it  cannot^ 
be  bought  or  balanced  by  the  worth  of  the  whole^ 
world. 

Jesus  sets  this  high  value  upon  man  as  such.  Even 
the  humblest  and  most  insignificant  person  possesses 
an  infinite  worth.  The  "  little  ones  "  of  earth  are  not 
to  be  despised.^  Whatever  injures  man  in  his  moral 
life,  causing  him  to  stumble  and  fall,  is  condemned, 
however  it  may  be  sanctioned  by  tradition  and  custom. 
When  the  sabbath,  for  example,  or  any  other  religious 
institution,  is  so  used  as  to  come  into  conflict  with 
man's  true  interests  and  thus  to  become  a  hindrance 
rather  than  a  help  to  his  moral  life,  it  is  then  more 
honored  in  the  profanation  than  in  the  observance. 

1  General  References :  Mathews,  The  Social  Teaching  of 
Jesus^  ch.  ii ;  Peabody,  Jesns  Christ  and  the  Social  Question ; 
Hamack,  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  40-45;  Wendt,  The 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  I,  256-364 ;  Stevens,  The  Theology  of  the 
N.  r.,  Part  I,  ch.  viii ;  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  ch.  v. 

2  Mk.  8  :  36,  37  ;  Matt.  16  :  26  ;  Lk.  9  :  25. 
8  Mk.  9  :  42. 

106 


THE  VALUE  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN     107 

The  good  of  man  is  the  end  for  which  all  religious 
ordinances  exist-,  when  they  cease  to  serve  that  end, 
their  value  is  lost. 

Jesus  strikingly  expressed  his  sense  of  the  value  of  The  solici- 
man  by  the  rhetorical  figure  of  understatement,  thus:   for  his^wel? 
"Ye  are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows";^  "How  fare, 
much,  then,  is  a  man  of  more  value  than  a  sheep !  "^ 
The  tender  solicitude  of  God  for  the  individual   is 
expressed  in  the  assurance,  "  The  very  hairs  of  your 
head  are  all  numbered."  ^    Whatever  harms  the  soul, 
that  is,  vitiates  and  depraves  the  moral  life,  must  be 
'sacrificed.     One  should  undergo  the  severest  loss  andl 
s suffering  rather  than  forfeit  his  true  life  of  fellowship; 
i with  God  and  likeness  to  him.     It  were  better  to  lose 
hands  and  feet  than  to  go  into  Gehenna;''  better  to 
sacrifice  all  earthly  possessions  and  comforts  than  to 
be  hindered  by  these  from  realizing  the  true  life  of  a 
son  of  God.* 

These  expressions  also  show  with  what  horror  Jesus  j^^^^,  jjo,.- 
contemplated  sin.     His  sense  of  man's  infinite  worth  ror  of  sin. 
supplied  the  measure  by  which  he  estimated  whatever 
debased  and  ruined  man.     None  ever  saw  and  portrayed 
the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin  as  Jesus  did.     Hence  his 
teaching  that  one  might  better  suffer  any  possible  loss 
rather  than  that  loss  of  soul  which  is  the  consequence  of 
sin.   His  pure  eye  clearly  saw  into  the  nature  of  sin  as  a 
perversion  of  the  moral  life,  a  wrong  choice  and  prefer-^ 
ence,  a  corruption  of  the  will  and  of  the  affections.] 
fit  is  the  loss  of  the  single  eye,  the  clear  vision ;  it  is. 
'moral  confusion  by  which  the  light  within  has  been! 
■turned  into  darkness;^  it  is  the  folly,  the  absurdity, [ 
|of  trying  to  realize  the  true  good  and  the  true  joy  of  | 

1  Matt.  10:31.  4Mk.9:43. 

2  Matt.  12  :  12.  6  Matt.  6  :  25  ;  Lk.  12  :  15-21. 
«  Matt.  10  :  30.  «  Matt.  6  :  22,  24. 


108 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Sin  has  its 
seat  in  the 
heart. 


Moral  sig- 
nificance of 
one's 
"words." 


Yet  Jesus  a 
friend  of 
sinners. 


flife  on  the  path  of  selfishness  instead  of  under  the  law^ 
of  love. 

Hence  sin  does  not  consist  in  outward  acts  as  such," 
but  in  a  state  of  the  heart.     Hate  is  the  essence  of, 

^murder ;  impurity  of  thought,  the  essence  of  adultery.^ 
An  evil  heart  is  the  fountain  out  of  which  evil  acts 
and  passions  proceed.  "  From  within,  out  of  the  heart 
of  men,  evil  thoughts  proceed,  fornication,  theft, 
murders,  adulteries,  covetings,  wickedness,  deceit,  las- 
civiousness,  an  evil  eye,  railing,  pride,  foolishness  ;  all 
these  proceed  from  within,  and  defile  the  man."^ 
Hence  a  man  is  corrupt  or  pure  in  proportion  as  his  inner 
life  is  corrupt  or  pure.  The  acts  and  words  of  men 
are  determined  by  their  characters,  as  the  fruit  of  a 
tree  is  determined  by  the  quality  of  the  tree.^  Hence 
the  solemn  significance  which  Jesus  attached  to  the 
words  of  men :  "  By  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  justified,  \ 
and  by  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  condemned."  *  The  ■ 
words  of  men  are  the  test  of  them,  since  "  out  of  the 
abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh."  ^  Words 
and  actions  are  the  forms  in  which  the  inner  life  of 
motive  and  principle  expresses  itself.  It  is  because 
they  are  an  index  of  the  real  inner  man  —  the  hidden 
man  of  the  heart  whom  God  alone  sees  —  that  they 
become  the  basis  of  the  divine  judgment  of  men.  In 
the  last  analysis,  however,  sin  and  goodness  lie,  not 
in  outward  actions,  but  in  inner  dispositions ;  nothing 
is  truly  good  which  is  not  rooted  in  a  good  will,  noth- 
ing evil  which  does  not  spring  from  an  evil  will. 

But  Jesus'  searching  analysis  and  severe  reproba- 
tion of  sin  did  not  involve  the  hopeless  abandonment  of 
the  sinner.  Indeed,  Jesus  was  surprisingly  optimistic 
in  regard  to  the  moral  possibilities  of  wicked  men. 


1  Matt.  5  :  21,  22  ;  27  :  28. 

2  Mk.  7  :  20-23. 

«  Matt.  7  :  17-20. 


*  Matt.  12  :  37. 
6  Matt.  12  :  34. 


THE  VALUE  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN     109 

His  optimism  seemed  to  the   people  of  his  time  to 
amount  to  leniency  in  the  estimate  of  sin,  if  not  to 
positive  approval.     Hence  they   gave  him  the  title, 
"Friend  of  publicans  and  sinners."^    The  difference  ^ateo?s^?n 
between  him   and  them  was   that   he  combined  the  and  sinners 
severest  disapproval  of  sin  with  love  and  hope  for  the  gSshed 
^sinner,  whereas  they  could   not   separate   the   sinner  from  that  of 
from  his  sinfulness.     The  reason  for  this  difference 
was  that  his  sense  of  sin  was  clear  and  keen,  while 
theirs  was  dull  and  confused.     Seeing  sin  as  consist- 
ing in  perverse  dispositions  and  affections,  he  saw  that 
it  could  be  cured  by  arousing  in  men  new  interests  and 
by  drawing  out  their  life   in   a  new  direction.     The 
religious  authorities  of  Jesus'  time,  the  moral  censors 
of  society,  on  the  contrary,  looked  upon  sin  as  a  habit 
or  mode  of  outward  life,  especially  as  characterizing 
'.certain  occupations.     Sin   was  to   them   a  technical 
faffair.     Its  chief  consequence  was  loss  of  caste,  social 
^ostracism.      In    this  view  there  was    no    hope    for 
I "  sinners."  ^ 

It  was  the  difference  between  a  profound  view  and  The  basis  of 
a  superficial  view  of  man,  with  a  corresponding  differ-  ^^^^  differ- 
ence in  the  estimate  both  of  sin  and  of  goodness. 
Jesus  saw  the  man  beneath  his  sin ;  they  saw  only 
the  man  in  his  sin.  The  different  view  of  sin  was 
rooted  in  a  different  view  of  goodness.  To  the  Phari- 
see virtue,  like  religion,  was  primarily  a  technical 
affair.  It  consisted  in  the  punctilious  doing  of  cer- 
tain things  —  the  minute  observance  of  ritual,  the 
scrupulous   maintenance   of    ceremonial    purity,   and 

1  Matt.  11  :  19. 

2  It  is  not  denied  that  there  were  among  the  Jews  those  who 
took  profounder  views  of  sin  and  of  morality.  I  speak  here  of 
the  average  attitude  of  the  people,  as  illustrated  in  their  moral 
conflicts  with  Jesus  and  reflected  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Gospels.  .     .^ 

UNlVi.KSiTY 

OF 


110  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

the  like.  To  the  Pharisee  to  pray  statedly  in  the 
temple  was  an  act  of  religion ;  to  Jesus  it  depended 
wholly  upon  the  spirit  of  the  prayer  offered  whether 
it  was  an  act  of  piety  or  of  impiety.^  To  the  Pharisee 
it  was  a  work  of  merit  to  stop  in  the  busy  street  to 
pray,  if  the  hour  of  prayer  chanced  to  overtake  him 
there;  to  Jesus  it  was  a  mockery  to  do  so  if  the 
motive  were  to  parade  one's  piety  before  men.^  To 
the  Pharisee  it  was  a  religious  duty  statedly  to  offer 
a  sacrifice  in  the  temple ;  Jesus  declared  that  if  on 
the  way  thither  one  remembered  that  he  had  wronged 
a  brother,  it  was  his  duty  to  leave  his  gift  to  God  un- 
offered  and  to  go  and  right  the  wrong.^ 
The  outer  From   such  differences  with  respect  to  what  was 

act^and  the  gQQ^j  arose  the  difference  between  Jesus  and  his  con- 
temporaries in  their  estimates  of  sin.  In  the  view  of 
the  pious  people  of  his  age  it  was  a  sin  to  touch  a 
Samaritan  in  the  street ;  in  the  view  of  Jesus  it  was 
a  sin  of  the  deepest  dye  not  to  touch  him  if  he  was  in 
need  of  help."*  In  their  view  it  was  a  sin,  in  any  cir- 
cumstances, to  pluck  ears  of  grain  on  the  sabbath ;  in 
his  view  it  was  wrong  not  to  do  so  when  by  such  an 
act  the  real  necessities  of  man  and  the  requirements 
of  his  duty  could  be  met.^  In  their  view  a  sinful 
woman  ought  to  be  stoned  to  death ;  in  his,  she  ought 
to  be  rescued  by  kindness  to  a  virtuous  life.^ 

Nowhere  does  Jesus'  view  of  sin  come  to  more  pow- 

1  Lk.  18  :  10-13.  *  Lk.  10  :  30-37. 

2  Matt.  6:2.  6  Mk.  2  :  23-28. 
8  Matt.  5  :  23,  24. 

6  Jn.  8  : 1-11.  This  narrative,  in  spite  of  the  weighty  evi- 
dence against  its  being  a  genuine  part  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  has 
all  the  marks  of  originality  and  truth.  It  is  probably  a  genuine 
narrative,  which  was  preserved  in  some  independent  manner, 
and  which  at  a  comparatively  late  date  was  incorporated  into 
the  fourth  Gospel.  On  the  question,  see  the  critical  commen- 
taries. 


THE  VALUE  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN     111 

erful  expression  than  in  the  incident  just  referred  to.   Significance 

With  what  startling  incisiveness  did  he  disarm  their  ot  the  peri- 
-,  ,.  ,    , .  ,  ,        cope  adul- 

unsparmg  condemnation,  and  disperse  the  accusers  by  terae. 

calling  upon  any  one  of  them  who  dared  to  say  that  he 
was  guiltless  of  unchaste  thought  or  passion  to  cast  the 
first  stone.     By  as  much  as  his  sense  of  the  evil  of  sin 
was  keener  than  theirs,  by  so  much  was  his  pity  and 
v.his   hopefulness  for  the  sinner   greater.     Indeed,  as   • 
between  the  sinfulness  of  the  poor  woman,  doubtless 
the  victim  of  circumstance  and  temptation,  and  that 
of  her  hard  and  pitiless  accusers,  whose  tests  of  good 
and  evil  were  wholly  outward  and  superficial,  Jesus 
clearly   implied  that  the   latter  was   more   heinous. 
\  This  is  a  reversal  of  common  human  judgment ;  it  is 
{  Jesus'  clear,  unhesitating  protest  against  the  eternal 
L  Pharisaism  of  the  human  heart. ^  ,    *- 

If,  now,  we  raise  the  larger  question:   What  was  Jesus  re- 
Jesus'  view  of  human  nature  in  general  ?  we  shall  sweepfng^"^ 
find  that  he  was  not  accustomed  to  pronounce  sweep-  judgments 
ing  judgments.     He  did  not  describe  or  treat  human  Mature In^^" 
nature  in  the  lump.     Neither  did  he  divide  men  into  general, 
two   sharply  defined   classes,  good   and  bad.      This 
method  of  classifying  men  was  common  in  his  time. 
There  were  two  kinds  of  people,  sinners  and  right- 
eous persons.     Jesus  used  the  classification,  but  did 
not  adopt  it.     He  used  the  terms  as  we  should  do  if 
we  wrote  them  with  quotation  marks.     The  righteous 
in  his  time  were  the  so-called  "righteous,"  and  the 
sinners  were  "  the  sinners  "  technically  so-called.     Of 
course,  they  were  really,  often  grossly,  sinful ;  but  the 
technically  "  righteous  "  were  often  marked  by  quali- 

1  *'  He  had  refused  to  judge  a  woman,  but  he  had  judged  a 
whole  crowd.  He  had  awakened  the  slumbering  conscience  in 
many  hardened  hearts,  given  them  a  new  delicacy,  a  new  ideal, 
a  new  view  and  reading  of  the  Mosaic  law."  —  Ecce  Homo 
(8th  ed.),  pp.  98,  99. 


112  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

ties  which  constitute  the  very  refinements  of  sin,  such 
as  pride  and  hardness  of  heart.  In  fact,  Jesus  found 
a  readier  response  to  his  truth  among  the  "  sinners  " 
than  among  the  "righteous."  If  susceptibility  to  his 
appeal  were  made  the  test  of  goodness,  the  two  classes 
would  often  change  places,  and  the  sinners  would  be 
found  entering  the  kingdom  while  the  orthodox  and 
pious  of  the  time  would  be  left  out.^ 
His  freedom  But  it  would  be  an  entire  mistake  to  suppose  that 
prejudice^  Jesus  became  the  patron  or  apologist  of  the  unpopular 
and  despised  classes  as  such.  He  defended  no  class,  as 
against  other  classes.  He  was  a  friend  of  publicans 
and  sinners,  not  because  publicans  pursued  an  un- 
popular calling  or  because  "  sinners "  were  social  out- 
casts, but  because  he  was  a  friend  and  helper  of  the 
needy  and  the  erring  whatever  their  status  in  society 
or  their  calling  in  life.  He  was  equally  a  friend  of 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  or  would  have  been  such  if  they 
would  have  had  him  for  a  friend.  Publicans  were  not 
worth  more  in  his  sight  than  Pharisees.  But  they 
were  (at  least  sometimes)  more  conscious  of  their 
spiritual  poverty  and  need^  than  Pharisees  who  be- 
longed to  the  ranks  of  the  self-satisfied  who  were  but 
feebly  aware,  if  aware  at  all,  that  they  needed  any 
repentance,  and  whose  dominant  note  was  always, 
"  I  am  holier  than  thou."  ^ 
Recognized  These  circumstances  illustrate  the  fact  that  Jesus 
go™d^and^^^  did  not  recognize  the  prevalent  methods  of  distin- 
evii  in  men.  guishing  men  into  good  and  bad.  Nor  did  he  substi- 
tute for  these  any  other  method  of  so  distinguishing 
them  in  a  sweeping,  unqualified  manner.  He  recog- 
nized a  mixture  of  good  and  evil  in  men.  They  were 
neither  wholly  good,  nor  wholly  bad.  Some  scribes 
and   Pharisees,  for  example,  were  not  far  from  the 

1  Matt.  21  :  31.  2  cf.  Lk.  19  : 1-10. 

8  Cf.  Lk.  18  :  11,  12. 


THE  VALUE  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN     113 

kingdom  of  God;^  against  others  Jesus  spoke  the 
sternest  words  of  condemnation  which  ever  passed  his 
lips.*  Many  publicans  were  doubtless  as  sinful  as  the 
whole  class  of  tax-gatherers  were  reputed  to  be ;  but 
Jesus  found  an  apostle  among  them.^  The  difference 
between  the  popular  judgment,  with  respect  to  such 
persons,  and  the  estimate  of  Jesus  was  this :  the  peo- 
ple branded  them  as  "  sinners "  chiefly  because  of 
their  occupation  and  their  social  standing,  while 
Jesus  judged  them  by  purely  moral  tests ;  they  con- 
demned them  wholesale,  as  belonging  to  a  reprobate 
{class,  while  he  judged  every  man  on  his  merits,  and 
jrefused  to  regard  or  treat  him  as  either  better  or 
Iworse  than  he  was. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  lends  no  support  to  the  doc-  Jesus  did 
trine  of  total  depravity.  All  men  are  not  as  bad  as  ^^ofafde- 
they  can  be.  There  can  be  no  greater  contrast  than  pravity." 
that  between  the  teaching,  so  long  common  in  theology, 
that  in  consequence  of  original  sin  and  native  deprav- 
ity all  men  are  utterly  destitute  of  all  goodness  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  the  attitude  which  Jesus 
assumed  toward  men.  In  even  the  worst  of  men  he 
found  a  spark  of  goodness.  He  never  regarded  the 
lost  as  irrecoverable.  He  sought  disciples  among  those 
who  were  popularly  regarded  as  most  unpromising,  and 
often  found  them.  Zacchaeus  proved  himself  a  son  of 
Abraham.*  The  publican  who  knew  himself  as  a  great 
sinner  went  down  to  his  house  justified.^  The  prodigal 
in  his  misery  and  rags  had,  at  least,  a  yearning  for  his 
i  father's  house  and  his  father's  love.  He  saw  in  the 
j  plain,  common  people  the  promise  of  a  rich  spiritual 
t  harvest,  if  laborers  could  be  had  to  reap  it,^  How 
absolutely  inconsistent  is  all  this  with  the  idea  that 

1  Mk.  12  :  34.  *  Lk.  19  :  9. 

2  Lk.  11  :  42  sq.  6  Lk.  18  :  14. 

8  Mk.  2  :  14.  «  Matt.  9 :  37,  38. 

I 


114 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Sin  against 
the  Holy 
Spirit. 


His  treat- 
ment of 
children. 


all  men  are,  and  have  been  from  their  birth,  morally 
dead  and  incapable  of  any  right  desires,  high  aspira- 
tions, or  noble  efforts.  The  contrary  was  the  convic- 
tion of  Jesus,  and  the  presupposition  of  all  his  work. 

The  nearest  approach  to  an  expression  of  hopeless- 
ness which  we  find  among  the  sayings  of  Jesus  is  found 
in  what  he  said  of  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit.^  Some 
had  ascribed  his  beneficent  works  to  a  diabolical  source, 
thus  illustrating  the  moral  perversion  of  those  who  call 
evil  good  and  good  evil.  They  were  headed  toward 
that  depth  of  depravity  which  Milton  depicts  when  he 
represents  Satan  as  saying,  "  Evil,  be  thou  my  good." 
Jesus  solemnly  warns  them  that  the  fearful  thing  in 
such  an  attitude  of  mind  is  not  opposition  to  him  or 
repudiation  of  his  Messiahship,  but  contempt  of  the 
spirit  of  pure  goodness  which  wrought  in  his  benevo- 
lent ministry.  But  he  does  not  say  that  the  men  to 
whom  he  spoke  had  actually  reached  the  depth  of  per- 
verseness  to  which  their  words  pointed.  It  could 
scarcely  have  availed  anything  to  warn  them  if  they 
had  reached  the  point  of  an  absolute  identification  of 
their  wills  with  evil.  But  Jesus  points  out  the  chasm 
which  yawns  before  them.  From  other  sins  recovery 
is  relatively  easy,  but  when  the  sense  of  goodness  is 
lost,  on  what  shall  recovery  be  based  ?  Such  a  condi- 
:  tion  is  not  a  sin ;  it  is  sin  absolutely ;  it  is  "  eternal 
sin." 

The  most  revealing  fact  in  regard  to  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  "  human  nature  "  is  his  treatment  of  children. 
When  with  indignation  he  rebuked  the  disciples  for 
preventing  the  coming  of  children  to  him,  he  added, 
"  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  ^  that  is,  of  such 
persons  as  little  children  are,  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
composed.     "  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom 

1  Mk.  3  :  22-30  ;  Matt.  12  :  22-45  ;  Lk.  11  :  14-23. 

2  Mk.  10 :  14. 


THE  VALUE  AND  DESTINY  OF  MAN     115 

of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
therein.'^  ^  Although  it  is  not  the  object  of  these 
expressions  to  teach  anything  directly  about  human 
nature  as  illustrated  in  children,  it  is  clear  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  used  the  characteristics  of  children  to 
illustrate  the  qualities  required  in  members  of  the 
kingdom  if  he  had  regarded  all  men  as  "  opposite  unto 
all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all 
evil,  and  that  continually."^  He  implied  that  there 
was  natural  goodness  in  children.  In  what  it  consisted 
he  did  not  say,  but  we  may  legitimately  infer  from  the 
use  which  he  made  of  it  that  he  was  thinking,  espe- 
cially, of  the  spirit  of  trustful  dependence  and  recep- 
tiveness  in  children  which  is  so  closely  akin  to  religious 
faith.  Inseparable  from  this  sense  of  dependence  is  a 
certain  humility  and  innocence  of  disposition  which 
Jesus  recognized  when  he  took  a  little  child  and  set 
him  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  and  said,  "  Whoso- 
ever shall  receive  one  of  such  little  children  in  my 
name,  receiveth  me ;  and  whosoever  receiveth  me,  re- 
ceiveth  not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me."  ^ 

That  there  is  a  future  life  for  man  is  assumed  in  The  basis  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  had  less  occasion  to  dwell  ^o^taiiS^ 
especially  upon  this  truth,  since  belief  in  it  was  gen- 
eral in  his  time.  The  Sadducees,  indeed,  rejected 
it,  and  thrust  their  denial  upon  his  attention  by 
asking  him,  if  a  woman  be  seven  times  married,  to 
which  husband  shall  she  belong  in  the  resurrection 
flife.*  The  chief  point  of  interest  in  Jesus'  rejoinder 
Us  that  he  grounds  the  hope  of  the  life  to  come  upon 
[man's  kinship  to  God.  He  lifts  the  whole  subject  to 
the  highest  plane,  and  finds  the  warrant  of  man's  con- 
tinued life  in  the  boundless  resources  of  the  divine 

1  Mk.  10  :  15  ;  Lk.  18  :  17. 

2  The  Larger  Westminster  Catechism,  Question  25. 
»  Mk.  9  :  37.  *  Mk.  12  :  18  sq. 


116  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

power  and  love.  Men  live  because  they  belong  to  God, 
and  he  is  the  God  of  the  living.  We  shall  have  occa- 
sion, later,  to  consider  this  passage  more  in  detail. 
Jesus'  esti-  If,  now,  we  ask  for  some  general  principle,  or  truth, 
groimded  fn  which  is  adequate  to  supply  a  basis  for  this  estimate 
two  prill-  of  the  value,  possibilities,  and  prospect  of  man,  we 
shall  find  it,  I  think,  in  man's  native  kinship  to  God. 
This  idea  has  two  aspects :  (1)  the  fatherhood  of  God, 
in  which  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  God's  providence 
and  gracious  salvation  is  grounded ;  and  (2)  the  natu- 
ral sonship  of  man  to  God,  in  which  is  based  Jesus' 
estimate  of  the  infinite  worth  of  the  human  soul 
and  the  prophecy  of  a  higher  and  better  life  to  come. 
The  failure  of  man  is  so  great,  his  sinfulness  is  so 
deplorable,  because  sin  means  the  forfeiture  of  his 
true  life  in  fellowship  and  likeness  to  God.  Sin  is  an 
unfilial  life,  in  which  man  loses  the  true  character  and 
sunders  the  true  relations  of  sonship;  salvation  is  a 
return  to  one's  true  self  and  to  the  Father  —  the  re- 
covery through  the  grace  and  forgiveness  of  God  of 
the  relation  of  obedience  to  God  and  of  likeness  to 
him.  All  is  grounded  in  the  fatherhood  of  God  and 
in  the  proper  sonship  of  man  to  God. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  NATURAL   AND    SPIRITUAL   WORLDS^ 

This  title  covers,  not  a  distinct  part  of  the  teaching  Questions 
of  Jesus,  but  a  number  of  questions  and  topics  which  JJ^^^j??  ^^ 
are  either  touched  upon  in  his  teaching  or  suggested 
by  some  of  his  sayings.  They  are  such  questions  as 
these :  What  was  his  attitude  toward  the  natural  world, 
toward  the  social  and  political  institutions  of  his  time, 
and  toward  the  supernatural  realm  of  spirits,  good  and 
evil,  whose  agency  held  so  large  a  place  in  the  work- 
ing theory  of  life  which  prevailed  in  his  age  ? 

In  connection  with  these  topics  a  previous  question  The  problem 

inevitably  arises  in  the  mind,   viz. :  What  were  the  Z^  Jests' 

•^  knowledge, 

scope  and  limits  of  Jesus'  knowledge  respecting  such 

subjects  as  nature,  history,  and  literature?  Did  he 
lay  claim  to  complete,  or  even  special,  knowledge  of 
these  subjects ;  and,  if  he  did  not,  are  there  reasons 
for  thinking  that  he  possessed  such  knowledge  ?  If 
so,  are  those  reasons  directly  presented  in  the  Gospels, 
or  are  they  to  be  derived  by  inference  from  the  gen- 
eral representation  which  the  Gospels  furnish  of  his 
person  ?  Three  possible  views  may  be  taken  in  an-  Three 
swer:  (1)  Jesus'  knowledge  of  such  subjects  was  theories, 
limited  to  the  measures  of  his  age.     (2)   His  knowl- 

1  General  References :  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus^  I,  151- 
172 ;  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theology,  Bk.  I,  ch.  iv ;  Stevens,  The- 
ology of  the  N.  T.,  Part  I,  ch.  vii ;  Moorhouse,  The  Teaching 
of  Christ ;  its  Conditions,  Secret,  and  Results ;  Peabody,  Jesua 
Christ  and  the  Social  Question ;  Brooks,  The  Influence  ofJesuSf 
Lect.  II ;  Hamack,  Das  Wesen  des  ChristentumSj  pp.  50-78. 
117 


118  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

edge  was  subject  to  no  limitation ;  he  was  omniscient. 

(3)  We  have  not  sufficient  data  for  determining  the 
scope  and  limits  of  his  knowledge,  nor  have  we  any 
need  to  do  so.  The  positive  principle  to  be  maintained 
is,  that  the  whole  stress  of  his  teaching  was  laid 
upon  interpreting  the  religious  life ;  that  he  made  no 
claims  and  assumed  no  function  as  a  teacher  in  those 
fields  of  thought  and  fact  which  constitute  the  prov- 
ince of  the  modern  sciences.  It  is  from  this  point  of 
view  that  we  shall  proceed  in  our  present  investiga- 
tion.^ 

Four  specific  Within  this  field  of  inquiry  there  are  four  princi- 
questions.  p^j  topics,  which  we^  shall  briefly  consider  in  order. 
What  was  the  attitude  of  Jesus,  what  the  presupposi- 
tions of  his  teaching  and  work,  concerning  the  fol- 
lowing subjects  :  (1)  nature,  (2)  social  and  political 
institutions,  (3)  the  history  of  literature  of  his  people, 

(4)  the  world  of  spirits,  good  and  evil  ? 

Jesus'  close  (1)  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  was  a  keen 
observation  observer  of  nature.  His  fondness  for  the  country  and 
his  frequent  references  to  nature's  common  moods  and 
ordinary  processes  are  proof  enough  of  this.  How 
often  do  we  find  him  by  the  lakeside  or  upon  the 
mountain!  How  frequently  do  we  hear  him  dis- 
coursing upon  what  he  observed  in  the  fields,  the 

1  That  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  was  subject  to  some  limita- 
tions is  clear  from  the  Gospels.  He  "advanced  in  wisdom,"  as 
he  did  in  stature  (Lk.  2  :  52),  and  he  explicitly  declared  that  he 
did  not  know  the  time  of  his  parousia  (Mk.  13  :  32 ;  Matt.  24  :  36). 
Those  who  hold,  notwithstanding  these  passages,  that  Jesus  was 
omniscient,  say  that  he  knew  all  things  as  God^  hut  as  man  he 
did  not  know.  So  Hall,  The  Kenotic  Theory,  ch.  x.  See 
three  articles  on  the  supposed  bearing  of  Jesus'  sayings  upon 
the  authorship  of  Old  Testament  books,  illustrating,  in  general, 
the  three  views  named  above,  by  Professors  Toy,  Stevens,  and 
Hovey,  in  The  0.  T.  Student,  December,  1888,  and  January  and 
February,  1889. 


NATUBAL  AND  SPIRITUAL    WORLDS       119 

woods,  and  the  sky!  "Behold  the  birds  of  the 
heaven  " ;  "  Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field  how  they 
grow"^ — he  exclaims,  when  he  wonld  call  attention 
to  God's  bountiful  provision  for  his  creatures  in  nature. 
His  parable-stories  are  largely  made  up  of  materials 
drawn  from  observation  of  the  processes  of  nature. 
The  character  and  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
he  illustrates  by  the  growth  of  seeds  and  the  spread- 
ing of  leaven;^  the  mixture  of  good  and  evil  in  the 
world  by  the  simultaneous  growth  of  wheat  and  tares,^ 
and  the  moral  fruitlessness  of  some  lives  by  the  bar- 
ren fig  tree.''  He  spoke  of  the  descending  rain  as  a 
symbol  of  the  beneficence  of  the  divine  Father.  Its 
falling  upon  all  without  distinction  was  to  him  a  sym- 
bol of  God's  boundless,  universal  love.^  In  the  in- 
stincts of  birds,  the  beauty  of  flowers,  the  radiation 
of  the  sun's  light  and  heat,  he  saw  examples  of  God's 
wisdom  and  mercy,  and  fit  emblems  of  his  free  and 
abounding  grace  to  mankind. 

The  Gospels  make  it  clear  to  us  that  Jesus  con- 
stantly derived  refreshment  and  rest  to  his  spirit  from 
the  contemplation  of  the  world.  He  was  keenly  sen- 
sitive to  the  sublimity  which  is  disclosed  in  the 
natural  order;  his  mind  ennobled  nature's  ordinary 
processes  by  discerning  a  divine  meaning  and  beauty 
in  them.  Nature  was  to  him  the  living  garment  in 
which  the  Eternal  had  robed  his  mysterious  loveliness. 
The  laws  and  processes  of  the  world  reveal  and  illus- 
trate a  divine  order  and  providence ;  nature  is  instinct 
with  life,  "  and  every  common  bush  afire  with  God." 

But  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  nature  was  that  of  Jesus*  view 
the  religious  and  poetic,  not  that  of  the  scientific,  in-  religious 

rather  than 

1  Matt.  6  :  26,  28.  scientific. 

2  Mk.  4  :  26-29  ;  Matt.  13  :  31,  32  ;  Lk.  13  :  20,  21. 
8  Matt.  13 :  24-30,  36-43. 

*Lk.l3:6-9.  6  Matt.  5: 45. 


120  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

terpreter.  He  never  discoursed  upon  nature  after  the 
manner  of  a  teacher  of  natural  science,  or  sought  to 
impart  to  men  any  knowledge  of  the  material  world 
beyond  that  commonly  possessed  by  the  people  of  his 
age.  He  spoke  of  natural  phenomena  in  the  popular 
language  of  his  time,  and  never  in  the  language  to 
which  modern  science  alone  could  give  rise  and  mean- 
ing. His  thoughts  concerning  nature  were  accordant 
with  his  general  view  which  regarded  all  things  as 
held  within  the  sway  of  God's  wise  and  loving  pur- 
pose. His  teaching  contributes  nothing  to  physical 
science;  such  an  addition  to  human  knowledge  was 
absolutely  foreign  to  his  purpose.  But  that  teaching 
illustrates  what  is  far  more  important,  namely,  how 
the  truly  religious  spirit  sees  God  revealed  in  his 
world,  and  helps  us  also  to  "  look  through  nature  up 
to  nature's  God." 

(2)  We  will  next  observe  the  allusions  which  Jesus 
made  to  the  social  and  political  institutions  of  his 
time. 
His  attitude  Jesus  honored  the  social  life  of  man.  He  not  only 
to  social  mingled  freely  with  his  fellow-men  as  he  casually  met 
them  in  the  fields  and  streets,  but  he  often  sought 
their  society  and  gladly  accepted  their  hospitality. 
He  desired  to  make  a  visit  at  the  house  of  Zacchseus, 
the  rich  publican.^  He  attended  a  feast  which  Levi 
made  in  his  honor  at  which  many  from  the  despised 
classes  were  present.^  Again,  we  see  him  sitting  down 
to  meat  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee,  where  the 
sinful  woman  broke  the  alabaster  box  of  ointment  upon 
his  feet ;  ^  and,  yet  once  more,  we  find  him  at  the  house 
of  an  influential  Pharisee  who  had  asked  him  to  dine 
with  him.  This  opportunity  he  seizes  to  point  the 
difference  between  ceremonial  and  moral   righteous- 

1  Lk.  19 :  5.  2  Mk.  2  :  15. 

»  Lk.  7  :  36  so. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL    WORLDS       121 

ness.^  He  seems  to  have  been  a  frequent  visitor  at 
the  home  of  Lazarus  and  his  sisters  in  Bethany.^ 
Clearly,  then,  there  was  no  trace  of  the  hermit  in 
Jesus.  He  participated  in  life's  social  joys,  and 
'through  them  made  the  influence  of  his  truth  and  per- 
sonality felt  upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men. 

Our  Lord  recognized  the  institution  of  the  family  as  Teaching 
sacred  and  divine.  He  said  that  the  easy  conditions  the*fami"y 
on  which,  under  the  Mosaic  law,^  husbands  might  put  and  divorce, 
away  their  wives,  were  permitted  on  account  of  the 
hardness  of  men's  hearts,  that  is,  were  adapted  to  a 
rude  state  of  society  in  which  they  were  the  best  prac- 
ticable regulations.'*  Jesus,  however,  forbade  hus- 
bands thus  to  dismiss  their  wives,  and  declared  that 
he  who  does  so  and  then  marries  again  commits  adul- 
tery.* Over  against  this  easy  arbitrary  separation  he 
placed  the  original  divine  idea  of  the  sexes  and  of 
marriage :  "  From  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  male 
and  female  made  he  them.  For  this  cause  shall  a 
man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to 
his  wife;  and  the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh:  so 
that  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh."  ^  Clearly 
the  purpose  of  Jesus  here  is  to  exalt  the  sacredness  of 
the  marriage  bond,  and  thereby  to  deny  the  arbitrary 
right  of  husbands  to  divorce  their  wives.^ 

1  Lk.  11  :  37-41.  2  Lk.  10  :  40  ;  Jn.  11  : 1  sq. 

8  An  example  of  the  "bill  of  divorcement,"  which  the  hus- 
band was  required  to  give,  may  be  seen  in  Lightfoot's  Horce 
ffebraicce  (Oxford,  1859),  II,  124.  In  connection  with  this, 
illustrations  are  also  given  of  the  slight  provocations  on  which 
husbands  were  accustomed  to  dismiss  their  wives.  The  law 
allowed  this  dismission  only  in  case  the  husband  had  found 
"some  unseemly  thing"  (Deut.  24: 1)  in  his  wife.  This  terra 
was  frequently  interpreted  to  mean  any  cause  of  complaint  or 
displeasure.    Its  real  meaning  was,  no  doubt,  adultery. 

*Mk.  10:5.  6  Mk.  10:11.  «  Mk.  10  : 6-8. 

'  Such  is  the  import  of  the  sayings  as  reported  by  Mark 


122  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Jesus  discussed, 
in  general,  such  themes  as  the  rights  of  private  owner- 
ship. We  can  only  say  that  private  property  was  a 
recognized  institution  in  his  age,  and  that  he  made  no 
objection  to  it.  He  speaks  of  the  right  use  of  earthly 
possessions,  whereby  they  may  be  made  a  means  of 
obtaining  the  true  riches.^  He  commends  Zacchseus 
for  his  generous  proposal  to  give  half  his  goods  to  the 
poor,  but  does  not  criticise  his  retention  of  the  other 
half.^  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  he  could  have  used 
the  relations  and  duties  of  landowners,  householders, 
and  stewards  to  illustrate  the  truths  of  his  kingdom  if 
he  had  looked  with  disfavor  upon  private  ownership. 

On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  set  a  wholly  different  esti- 
mate upon  worldly  possessions  from  that  which  is 
common  among  men.  He  recognized  in  wealth  a 
great  peril  and  snare  on  account  of  the  pride  and 
abuse  of  power  to  which  it  so  frequently  ministers. 
He  found  the  love  of  riches  one  of  the  greatest  obsta- 
cles to  his  truth  and  kingdom.^  There  are  no  more 
solemn  warnings  than  those  which  he  spoke  against 
covetousness,^  and  no  more  severe  condemnations  than 
that  which  he  directed  against  the  worship  of  Mam- 

(10:11)  and  Luke  (16:18).  To  this  saying,  twice  repeated, 
Matthew  adds,  "except  for  fornication"  (5:32;  19:9).  This 
addition  makes  the  passage  a  statement  of  the  condition  on 
which  the  husband  may  dismiss  his  wife,  whereas  in  the  other 
Gospels  the  point  is  to  assert  the  general  principle  that  husbands 
are  not  at  liberty  to  put  away  their  wives  at  will.  The  addition 
of  Matthew  diverts  the  teaching  from  its  primary  intent.  It  is 
worth  while,  also,  to  observe  that  Jesus  here  says  nothing  on 
the  question,  on  what  grounds  a  state  may  authorize  divorce. 
He  is  speaking  to  a  question  of  his  age,  namely  :  Is  the  common 
dismission  of  wives  by  husbands  allowable  ?  He  condemns  the 
custom  as  contrary  to  the  sacredness  of  marriage. 

1  Lk.  16  :  9-11.  3  Mk.  4  :  19 ;  10  :  23,  24. 

2  Lk.  19  :  8.  *  Lk.  12  :  13-21. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL    WORLDS       123 

mon.^  He  taught  that  earthly  goods  were  insignifi- 
'cant  in  value  compared  with  the  interests  of  man's 
inner  life,  and  that  any  sacrifice  of  the  former  should 
be  freely  made  when  demanded  for  the  protection  or 
promotion  of  the  latter.^  In  one  instance,  in  order  to 
test  a  self-satisfied  moralist  who  half  defied  him  to  name 
a  "  good  thing "  which  he  had  not  done,  Jesus  chal- 
lenged him  to  sell  his  possessions  and  give  them  to  the 
poor.^  The  demand  was  evidently  made  in  view  of 
the  special  character  and  claims  of  the  rich  young 
ruler,  since  no  similar  demand  was  ever  made  of  any 
other  person.  It  was  a  striking,  concrete  way  of  teach- 
ing the  utter  triviality  of  material  as  compared  with 
moral  values.  He  did  not,  however,  condemn  the  rich 
as  such,  nor  did  he  regard  worldly  possessions  as  nec- 
essarily evil.  They  may,  on  the  contrary,  be  made  a 
powerful  instrument  of  good.'* 

It  quite  agrees  with  what  we  have  observed  thus  Not  ascetic 
far  that  Jesus  did  not  assume  the  garb  or  the  habits  ^^  ^i^e- 
of  an  ascetic.  "The  Son  of  man  (unlike  John  the 
Baptist)  came  eating  and  drinking."^  He  submitted 
to  the  charge  of  being  "a  gluttonous  man  and  a  wine- 
bibber,"  to  which  his  genial  mode  of  life  gave  occasion, 
rather  than  adopt  a  course  of  abstinence  whose  logi- 
cal ground  is  the  assumption  of  the  inherent  evil  of 
the  things  of  the  world.  He  recognized  such  things 
as  food  and  raiment  as  God's  good  gifts  to  supply  the 
needs  of  his  creatures.®  For  him  as  for  the  Psalmist, 
the  earth  was  the  Lord's  and  the  fulness  thereof.^ 
Jesus'  renunciation  of  the  world  was  quite  different 
from  that  of  the  ascetic.  He  never  commended  self- 
denial  for  its  own  sake  or  condemned  the  harmless 

1  Matt.  6  :  24. 

2  Matt.  5  :  40-42 ;  Lk.  12  :  15,  21,  33,  34. 

»  Mk.  10  :  21,  22.  ^  Lk.  7  :  34.  7  pg.  24  : 1. 

*  Lk.  16  :  9-11.  «  Matt.  6  :  32,  33. 


124 


THE  TE ACHING   OF  JESUS 


Civil  au- 
thority. 


Disclaims 

political 

aims. 


f joys  and  comforts  of  life.  He  conquered  the  world, 
[not  by  a  cowardly  renunciation  of  it,  but  by  subduing 
it  to  the  higher  uses  of  the  spirit. 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  civil  authority  and 
power  must  be  inferred  from  a  few  incidental  allu- 
sions and  circumstances.  His  most  noteworthy  say- 
ing touching  the  subject  is,  "Render  unto  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Csesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God's."  ^  In  these  words  he  clearly  recognizes  a 
province  of  civil  authority,  as  well  as  a  sphere  of  reli- 
gious duty.  He  approves  the  payment  of  taxes  for  the 
.support  of  the  State,  but  implies  that  this  is  a  trifling 
obligation  compared  with  rendering  obedience  to  God. 
In  like  manner  he  recommends  conformity  to  the 
usage  of  his  people  in  the  payment  of  tribute  for 
the  support  of  the  temple  service,  though  recognizing 
the  freedom  of  himself  and  his  disciples  from  the  re- 
quirement to  sustain  the  Jewish  ritual.^  When  we 
observe  the  life  of  Jesus  as  a  whole  we  find  that  he 
was  an  obedient  and  loyal  citizen;  he  respected  the 
customs  and  laws  of  his  country ;  he  was  not  an  eccen- 
tric or  lawless  person. 

He  disclaimed,  however,  for  himself  and  his  king- 
dom any  political  character  or  prerogatives.  When 
many  wished  to  make  him  a  king  he  withdrew  into 
the  solitude  of  the  mountain,^  and  when  his  disciples, 
dreaming  of  worldly  power,  began  to  request  places  of 
prominence  in  the  empire  which  they  supposed  he 
would  found,  he  replied :  "  Ye  know  that  they  which 
are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over 
them ;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  over 
them.  But  it  is  not  so  among  you:  but  whosoever 
would  become  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  min- 
ister: and  whosoever  would  be  first  among  you  shall 


1  Mk.  12  : 1. 


2  Matt.  17  :  24-27. 


Jn.  6  :  15. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL    WORLDS       125 

be  servant  of  all.     For  verily  the  Son  of  man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  ^    When,  later,  he  entered  His  tri- 
Jerusalem  as  the  confessed  Messiah  of  his  people  and  '^"^P^al 
permitted  himself  to  be  hailed  as  the  King  of  Israel,  into  Jeru- 
he  did  so  in  a  manner  which  proclaimed,  not  pride  and 
power,  but  meekness  and  lowliness.     He  entered  the 
city  in  the  spirit  depicted  by  Zechariah,  riding,  not 
upon  a  'horse,  the  symbol  of  war,  but  upon  an  ass, 
the  symbol  of  peace,  thus  fulfilling  the  prophetic  pic- 
ture: "Eejoice  greatly,  0  daughter  of  Zion;  shout,  0 
daughter  of  Jerusalem :  behold,  thy  king  cometh  unto 
thee:    he  is  just  and  having   salvation;    lowly  and 
riding  upon  an  ass,  even  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an 
ass."  ^ 

(3)  With  respect  to  the  history  and  literature  of  References 
Israel,  Jesus  spoke  the  language  of  his  time.  He  v?t®^^^^mj 
spoke  of  books  under  the  names  of  their  traditional  literature, 
authors,  and  freely  used  various  Old  Testament  stories 
for  illustrating  his  truth.  Some  think  that  by  these 
allusions  the  authority  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher  is  com- 
mitted to  the  correctness  of  the  Jewish  traditional  be- 
liefs alluded  to.  The  argument  is  that  Jesus  spoke  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  "  the  book  of  Moses  "  ^  and  as  con- 
taining what  "  Moses  wrote  "  or  "  commanded,"  *  and 
alluded  to  certain  Psalms  as  containing  what  "  David 
said  " ;  ^  therefore  we  must  hold  that  Moses  and  David 
wrote  the  books  in  question,  unless  we  are  to  surrender 
the  authority  of  Jesus.  In  like  manner,  Jesus'  allu- 
sion to  Jonah  is  supposed  to  authenticate  the  historical 
character  of  the  Jonah  narrative  in  the  Old  Testament.* 

1  Mk.  10  :  42-45.  4  Mk.  7  :  10 ;  Matt.  8 : 4. 

2  Zech.  9:9;  Matt.  21:5.  «  Mk.  12  :  36. 
»  Mk.  12  :  26. 

«  In  this  case,  however,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Jonah-sign, 
according  to  Luke,  is  Jonah's  preaching  (11 :  29-32),  as,  indeed, 


126  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Did  it  suit  the  views  and  needs  of  those  who  adopt 
this  mode  of  argument  to  do  so,  they  would  be  able  to 
show,  on  the  same  presuppositions,  how  the  allusions 
of  Jesus  to  the  material  world  and  to  the  mental  con- 
stitution of  man  have  set  bounds  and  given  law  to  all 
physical  science  and  intellectual  philosophy. 
Not  a  To  me  it  seems  not  only  unwarranted,  but  derogatory 

crlticfsm!  ^^  Jesus,  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to  pronounce  upon 
questions  of  science,  history,  and  criticism  —  partly 
because  these  questions  did  not  exist  in  his  age,  and 
partly  because  he  concerned  himself  for  what  was  in- 
finitely more  important.  To  those  who  wish  to  drag 
him  into  their  controversies  in  criticism  I  cannot  help 
thinking  that  he  would  reply  as  he  did  to  those  per- 
sons in  his  time  who  sought  to  engage  him  in  disputes 
which  did  not  concern  his  great  life-work :  Who  made 
me  a  judge  among  you?^  How  grandly  did  he  con- 
centrate his  whole  attention  and  effort  upon  the  work 
which  he  had  come  to  do  as  the  Founder  of  the  king- 
dom of  God !  How  "  magnificently  forgetful "  was  he 
i  of  all  that  lay  aside  from  the  path  of  his  revealing  and 
saving  mission ! 

(4)  A  fourth  topic  can  only  be  briefly  considered : 
The  references  of  Jesus  to  the  spirit-world.^ 

it  is  also  for  Matthew  (12:41,  42).  This  was  doubtless  the 
original  import  of  Jesus'  allusion  to  the  Jonah-story,  a  use  of  it 
which  accords  perfectly  with  the  purpose  and  spirit  of  the  Book 
of  Jonah  (3:4).  But  the  first  Evangelist  (alone)  has  also  intro- 
duced (12  :  40)  a  parallel  between  Jonah's  being  three  days  in 
the  belly  of  a  sea  monster  and  Jesus'  three  days'  burial,  thereby 
bringing  forward  an  idea  quite  foreign  to  the  passage  as  a  whole, 
and  giving  an  entirely  different  meaning  to  the  Jonah-sign.  It 
is  only  from  this  addition,  of  very  doubtful  originality,  that  the 
above  argument  is  constructed.  Cf .  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu^  p.  103 ; 
Holtzmann,  Hand-Corn.,  in  loco.  i  Lk.  12  :  14. 

2  I  have  discussed  it  at  length  in  my  Theology  of  the  N.  T., 
Pt.  I,  eh.  vii. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL   WORLDS       127 


We  find  that  he  speaks  of  heaven,  of  angels,  and  of  References 
evil  spirits  in  the  manner  which  was  common  among  ^^q^^  spint- 
the  Jews  of  his  time.  Heaven  is  the  seat  of  the  divine 
majesty,  or  a  symbol  of  the  divine  activity,  authority, 
or  government.^  He  refers  to  Hades  as  the  general 
abode  of  the  dead,^  and  to  Paradise  as  the  place  of 
happiness  in  Hades.^  To  angels  he  made  frequent 
references  as  the  ministers  and  guardians  of  himself 
and  others,  and  as  accompanying  him  at  his  glorious 
coming.*  Satan,  who  in  the  Old  Testament  is  Jeho- 
vah's messenger  for  inflicting  physical  evils  upon  men, 
is,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  the  evil  one,  the  tempter 
to  sin.^  Jesus  also  speaks  after  the  manner  of  his  Demoniacal 
time  of  men  being  "  possessed  '^  or  inhabited  by  evil 
spirits.  If  two  doubtful  cases  are  counted,  there  are 
seven  narratives  of  "  possession  "  in  the  Synoptics.® 

We  find,  however,  several  instances  in  which  these 
various  ideas  are  employed  by  Jesus  in  a  poetic  or 
figurative  sense.  He  says,  for  example,  that  he  might 
summon  "  twelve  legions  of  angels  "  to  protect  him 
against  his  enemies.^  His  "  little  ones  "  have  each  his 
guardian  angel.^  Lazarus  is  carried  after  his  death 
"  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom."  ^  When  the 
Seventy  returned  from  their  successful  mission  he 
expressed  his  joy  at  their  success  by  exclaiming,  "  I 


Figurative 
or  poetic 
references 
to  these  sub- 
jects. 


1  Matt.  5 :  12  ;  Mk.  11  :  30 ;  Lk.  12  :  33  ;  15  :  18. 

2  Lk.  16  :  23.  »  Lk.  22  :  43. 

*  Mk.  8  :  38 ;  12  :  25  ;  13  :  32  ;  Matt.  18  :  10  ;  26  :  53 ;  Lk.  16  :  22. 

6  Matt.  4 : 1-11 ;  13 :  18 ;  Mk.  4 :  15 ;  Lk.  22  :  31. 

•  Mk.  1 :  21  sq.  ;  5 : 1  sq.  ;  Matt,  9 :  32,  33  ;  Mk.  7  :  25  sq.  ; 
Matt.  17:15.  The  healing  of  the  "blind  and  dumb"  man 
(Matt.  12 :  22)  may  be  a  repetition  of  the  similar  case  already 
related  in  Matt.  9:  32,  33  (so  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesii,  p.  100).  The 
"woman  whom  Satan  had  bound"  (Lk.  13: 16)  is  not  said  to 
have  been  "  possessed,"  though  she  was  probably  so  regarded. 
No  similar  "possession"  is  recognized  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 

7  Matt.  26  :  53.  8  Matt.  18 :  10.  »  Lk.  16 :  22. 


128  TBE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

beheld  Satan  falling  as  lightning  from  heaven."  ^  He 
even  applies  the  term  "Satan"  to  Peter  when  the 
apostle  opposes  his  pursuit  of  his  divinely  appointed 
career  of  suffering.^  We  find  that  he  sometimes  at- 
tributes to  the  "  spirit "  inhabiting  the  "  possessed  " 
person  the  character  of  the  disease.  Thus  he  speaks 
of  a  "  dumb  spirit,"  and  of  a  "  spirit  of  infirmity," 
that  is,  producing  infirmity.^  Sometimes  he  personi- 
fies the  disease  itself.  Thus  Peter's  mother-in-law 
was  "  holden "  with  a  violent  fever,  which  Jesus 
"  rebuked."  *  In  one  place  he  describes  an  "  unclean 
spirit"  wandering  through  desert  wastes  seeking  a 
habitation,  and  finally  associating  with  himself  seven 
companion  spirits,  more  evil  than  himself,  and  return- 
ing to  dwell  in  the  man  whom  he  had  formerly  pos- 
sessed.^ The  description  is  intended  to  illustrate  the 
tendency  of  men  to  relapse,  after  temporary  amend- 
ment, into  a  worse  state  of  sin.  If  read  as  an  apologue, 
it  is  appropriate  and  forceful;  if  understood  as  a  literal 
description  of  facts  it  is  singularly  grotesque. 
How  " pos-  If  the  term  "  possession"  were  not  used  in  describing 
toTe^under-  *^®  seven  cases  of  physical  and  mental  maladies  above 
stood.  referred  to,  we  should  experience  no  difficulty  what- 

ever in  accounting  for  their  symptoms  as  characteris- 
tics of  various  disorders  of  mind  and  body.  This  is 
the  conclusion  to  which  all  the  known  facts  point.  It 
can  be  averted  only  in  case  it  can  be  shown  that  Jesus 
must  have  positively  authenticated  as  correct  every 
popular  idea  to  which  he  referred.  Such  a  view  is 
not  only  inherently  improbable,  as  being  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  and  limits  of  his  life-work,  but  quite 
inapplicable  to  some  of  the  passages  in  which  refer- 


iLk.  10:17.  8  Mk.  9:17;  Lk.  13:11. 

2  Mk.  8 :  33.  *  Lk.  4  :  38,  39. 

6  Matt.  12  :  43-45 :  Lk.  11 :  24-26. 


NATURAL  AND  SPIRITUAL   WORLDS       129 

ence  is  made  to  the  subject  in  question.     Jesus  used 
the  current  thought-forms  of  his  age  for  his  purpose 
—  the  teaching  of  the  way  of  God  in  truth.     It  is 
inconceivable  that  he  could  have   accomplished  his 
purpose  in  any  other  way.     Had  he  spoken  the  lan- 
guage of  modern   science  —  for  example,  of  modern 
astronomy  or  medical  science  —  his  teaching  would 
have  had  no  meaning  or  power  for  the  people  of  his 
itime.     He  must  work  with  the  media  furnished  by 
I  the  thought-world  of    his   age,   and  offer    men   his 
I  heavenly  treasure  of  truth  and  life  in  the  earthen 
t  vessels  of  human  pictorial  language  and  thinking. 


CHAPTEE  XI 

THE   RELIGION    OF   A   GOOD   LIFE  ^ 

Christianity       The  great  philosopher,  Kant,  has  affirmed  that  Chris- 
reMgiSi.         tianity  is  the  only  moral  religion,  that  is,  the  religion 
of  a  good  life.^     Whether   Christianity  is  the  only 
moral  religion  may  be  open  to  dispute,  but  there  is  no 
room  for  doubt  that  the  religion  which  Jesus  taught 
and  exemplified  was  moral  to  the  core,  that  is,  was 
wholly    concerned  with  righteousness  of  life.     How 
men  ought  to  live,  that  is,  to  think  and  feel  and  act, 
.  in  their  relations  to  God  and  their  fellows,  is  the  con- 
stant and  comprehensive  theme  of  Jesus'  teaching. 
The  doctrine       It  was  agreed  on  all  hands  by  the  people  of  Jesus' 
ness?^*^*^"^'  *^^®  ^^^*  ^^  ^^^  necessary  for  men  to  be  righteous 
before  God.     The  great  difference  between  Jesus  and 
his  age  was  with  respect  to  what  constituted  righteous- 
ness.    To  the  men  of  his  time  it  was  a  legal  and  cere- 
monial, to  him  it  was  a  moral,  affair.     "  I  fast  twice 
in  the  week  and  pay  tithes  of  all  that  I  possess  "  ;  ^  "I 
have  observed  all  the  commandments  from  my  youth,"* 
—  these  were  typical  expressions  of  the  "righteous- 
ness "  which  the  representative  Jew  of  Jesus'  time  was 

1  General  Keferences :  Beyschlag,  N.  T.  Theology^  Bk,  I, 
ch.  v;  Stevens,  The  Theology  of  the  N.  T.,  Ft.  I,  ch.  ix*;  The 
Johannine  Theology^  ch.  ix ;  article  "Righteousness  in  N.  T.," 
in  Hastings'  B.  D. ;  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  chs.  viii,  ix ; 
Horton,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  95-108 ;  Seeley,  Ecce  Homo, 
Ft.  II ;  Harnack,  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums,  45-50. 

2  See  Kant's  Theory  of  Ethics,  ed.  by  T.  K.  Abbott,  p.  360. 
«  Lk.  18  :  12.  4  Mk.  10  :  20. 

130 


THE  BELIGION  OF  A   GOOD  LIFE         131 

proudly  conscious  of  possessing.  Jesus'  conception  of 
righteousness  is  expressed  in  the  principle  of  love  to 
God  and  man  which  is  the  essence  of  all  command- 
ments.^ Jesus  does  not  deny  the  propriety  and  possi- 
ble moral  worth  of  the  deeds  which  were  popularly 
regarded  as  constituting  righteousness.  "  These  ought 
ye  to  have  done,"  he  said  on  one  occasion,  "  but  not  to 
leave  undone,"  the  more  important  things,  the  exercise 
of  justice  and  mercy,  and  of  love  toward  God.^  The 
two  views  of  righteousness  were  not  in  all  points  and 
necessarily  exclusive  each  of  the  other.  But  they  dif- 
fered so  completely  in  emphasis  that  they  always 
tended  to  become  mutually  exclusive.  For  the  Jew 
ritual  held  the  first  place ;  for  Jesus  morality  held 
the  first  place.  With  the  Jew  the  chief  emphasis  was 
laid  upon  certain  acts ;  with  Jesus  it  was  laid  upon 
certain  dispositions. 

From  this  starting-point  let  us  collate  the  various  iiiustra- 
expressions  and  illustrations  which  Jesus  gave  of  his  *^^^®* 
doctrine  of  a  good  life.  If  righteousness  is  accepta- 
bleness  to  God,  conformity  to  God's  requirements,  then 
the  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  question,  in  what  does 
righteousness  consist  ?  would  unquestionably  be,  it 
consists  in  love.  He  teaehes  that  love  is  the  essence 
of  God's  law,  and  that  it  is  therefore  in  the  life  of  love 
that  man  realizes  his  sonship  to  God.  Love  is  God- 
;  likeness,  and  therefore  the  principle  of  the  perfect  lif e.^ 
The  righteousness  of  the  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  —  which  must  be  superior  to  the  outward,  legal 
righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  * — is  clearly 
conceived  of  as  consisting  in  love  and  its  exercise, 
since  Jesus  immediately  proceeds  to  show  how  the  true 
righteousness  forbids  impurity,  anger,  and  hate,  and 

1  Matt.  22  :  40.  «  Mk.  12  :  28-31 ;  Matt.  6 :  48. 

a  Lk.  11:42.  *  Matt.  5:20. 


132  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

requires  and  secures  self-control,  generosity,  and  be- 
nevolence.^    When  lie  was  asked  for  a  law  by  the 
observance  of  which  one  might  attain  eternal  life,  he 
cited  the  law  of  love.^    Love,  then,  is  righteousness. 
'  The  kingdom  and  the  righteousness  of  God  are  to  be 
■  sought  and  won  by  loving  God  supremely,  and  one's 
neighbor  as  himself. 
What  is  But  what,  then,  is  love,  and  what  specifically  does  it 

love?  require?     Jesus  nowhere  formally  defines  love,  but  he 

so  fully  illustrates  its  nature  and  action  that  we  are 
at  no  loss  to  obtain  a  clear  idea  of  its  meaning.  The 
elements  of  the  true  righteousness,  which  consists  in 
love,  may  readily  be  gathered  from  the  "  Sermon  on 
the  Mount."  The  qualities  enumerated  in  the  Beati- 
tudes —  such  as  humility,  meekness,  mercifulness, 
purity  of  heart,  and  peaceableness  —  are  among  the 
characteristics  of  a  true  love  to  God  and  man.  Love 
prompts  to  "good  deeds," ^  to  reconciliation  among 
brethren,^  to  self-restraint  and  discipline,^  to  straight- 
.  forwardness  and  truthfulness  in  speech,^  to  kindness 
and  a  forgiving  spirit,  even  toward  those  who  have  done 
us  injury.^  Love  requires  simplicity  as  opposed  to 
hypocrisy,^  sincerity  as  opposed  to  ostentation.^  Love 
to  God  will  lead  men  to  trust  him  and  will  thereby 
deliver  them  from  distracting  anxieties;  ^"  it  will  make 
men  charitable,  and  indisposed  to  judge  others  with 
undue  severity."  Above  all,  love  to  God  will  place 
him  alone  on  the  throne  of  the  world,  and  will  bow 
down  to  and  serve  no  other  master.  It  will  make  God 
supreme  and  place  his  kingdom  first.^^  Thus  it  will 
unify  and  concentrate  all  life  by  directing  its  interests 

1  Matt.  5  :  21-48.  ^  Matt.  5  :  29.  »  Matt.  6  :  5-8. 

2  Lk.  10  :  25-28.  ^  Matt.  5  :  37.  lo  Matt.  6  :  19-34. 
«  Matt.  5  :  16.                   '  Matt.  5  :  44.             ^  Matt.  7  : 1-5. 

*  Matt.  5  :  22.  s  Matt.  6  : 1-4.  12  Matt.  6  :  33. 


THE  BELIGION  OF  A   GOOD  LIFE         133 

and  efforts  to  the  one  supreme  and  sufficient  goal  — 
union  with  God  through  moral  likeness  to  him. 

Love  to  God,  then,  is  evidenced  by  trust  in  God's  How  love 
providence  and  by  the  living  of  a  life  like  that  of  God  g2(^  ^^ 
in  its  generosity,  its  helpfulness,  and  its  readiness  to 
forgive.     To  love  God  is  to  choose  his  perfect  life  as 
our  pattern  and  goal,  and  to  live  in  the  spirit  of  it. 
Such  is  the  first  and   great  commandment,  and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it.     Love  to  man  is  shown  in  a  Love  to 
Godlike   estimate  and  treatment  of  him.     Such  love  ^^^' 
requires  that  men  strive  to  realize  for  their  fellow-men 
the  ends  of  the  divine  love;  that  they  estimate  the 
rights  and  value  of  others  as  equal  to  their  own,  and 
regard  and  treat  others  in  accord  with  those  universal 
^principles  and  laws  of  love  and  truth  which  are  dis- 
'closed  in  the  divine  treatment  of  men.    The  right- 
eousness of  God  is  perfect,  holy  love,  and  the  law  of 
love  for  men  is  likeness  to  God  in  disposition  and 
action. 

What  such  love  requires  Jesus  often  illustrated,  a  concrete 
thereby  affording  us  a  clear  view  of  his  conception  of  example, 
love's  nature.     The  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  is 
a  striking  example.^     In  it  he  shows  us  at  once  what 
is  the  scope  and  the  action  of  true  love.     Such  love 
is   universal;    it   knows   nothing   of    the   boundaries 
which  separate  social  classes.      The  law  of  love  de- 
mands that  even  a  despised  Samaritan,  if  in  distress, 
shall  be  served  and  helped.     It  requires  something 
more  than  a  compassionate  sentiment  or  a  patronizing 
pity.     It  requires  action  and  effort,  and,  if  need  be, 
sacrifice.     It  is  not  satisfied  with  the  theoretic  sym- 
pathy which  says,  "  Depart  in  peace,  be  warmed  and 
filled,"  ^  but  demands  that  what  the  sufferer's  neces- 
sities  require   be  done.     A  more  sweeping,  abstract  A  more  gen- 
statement  of  this  principle  Jesus  gave  when  he  taught  ^ent?*^^" 
1  Lk.  10  :  29-37.  2  jas.  2  :  17. 


134 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Love  and 
prudence. 


Love  re- 
quires for- 
giveness. 


his  disciples  that  they  were  not  merely  to  love  those 
who  loved  them,  —  to  do  that  is  only  to  obey  a  uni- 
versal human  instinct,  —  but  to  love  also  those  who 
hated  and  injured  them  :  "  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your 
enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  bless  them 
that  curse  you,  and  pray  for  them  that  despitefuUy 
use  you."  ^  Why  ?  "  In  order  that  you  may  become 
[or,  prove  yourselves  to  be]  the  sons  of  your  Father 
who  is  in  heaven,"^  for  he  loves  and  blesses  all. 
From  these  passages  it  is  clear  that  one's  "  neighbor " 
is  any  one  whom  he  can  help,  and  that  love  is,  by  its 
nature,  large  and  generous,  giving  out  in  sympathy 
and  service  to  all  who  come  within  the  reach  of  its 
power. 

Love  is  not  a  calculating  prudence  which  renders 
its  services  because  it  hopes  for  reward  in  return. 
The  spirit  of  love  is  no  longer  present  in  benefits 
conferred  in  the  hope  of  receiving  as  much  again. 
Such  a  temper  is  too  much  infected  with  selfish  mo- 
tives to  deserve  the  name  of  love.  It  is,  no  doubt,  in 
the  light  of  this  principle  that  we  are  to  understand 
the  sayings  about  turning  the  other  cheek  to  the 
smiter,  and  giving  the  coat  also  to  him  who  asks  the 
cloak.^  It  is  a  hyperbolic  expression  of  the  generosity 
of  love  in  contrast  to  the  cold,  calculating  prudence 
and  slightly  enlarged  selfishness  which  bestow  bene- 
fits only  upon  favorites — which  care  only  for  those 
of  "  our  set "  and  despise  those  from  whom  no  gratifi- 
cation is  to  be  derived.  Such  "  love  "  does  not  rise 
above  the  morals  of  heathenism ;  ^  it  has  never  been 
touched  by  a  sense  of  God's  fatherhood  or  of  the 
brotherhood  of  men. 

Love  also  requires  that  men  be  always  ready  to  for- 
give injuries  upon  condition  of  repentance  on  the  part 


iLk.  6:27,28;  Matt.  5:44. 
2  Matt.  5  :  45. 


8  Matt.  6  :  40. 
*  Matt.  5  :  47. 


THE  RELIGION   OF  A   GOOD  LIFE  135 

of  tlie  wrong-doer.  This,  too,  is  a  corollary  from  the 
nature  of  God.  He  is  always  forgiving,  but  he  re- 
quires sincere  repentance.  The  law  of  likeness  to 
God  requires  that  we  be  willing  to  do  as  God  does. 
Hence  God's  forgiveness  of  us  is  conditioned  upon  our 
cherishing  a  forgiving  spirit  toward  others.  "If  ye 
forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father 
will  also  forgive  you.  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their 
trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your  tres- 
passes.''^ Hence  in  the  model  prayer  which  Jesus 
taught  his  disciples,  the  petition  for  forgiveness  runs, 
"  And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  also  have  forgiven 
our  debtors."  ^  Forgiveness  on  our  part  is  conceived  Why  for- 
as  a  condition  precedent  of  our  receiving  the  divine  feJuJred 
forgiveness,  because  the  forgiving  spirit  is  a  test 
and  measure  of  the  desire  for  Godlikeness ;  he  whose 
forgiveness  does  not  wait,  ready  to  be  granted  to 
any  who  have  injured  him,  thereby  shows  that  he 
repudiates  the  life  of  love  and  refuses  to  recognize, 
honor,  and  obey  it.  He  erects  a  barrier  against  the 
divine  forgiveness  because  he  refuses  to  place  his  own 
\  life  under  the  law  of  forgiveness ;  by  showing  no  mercy 
;he  withdraws  himself  from  the  forum  of  merciful 
judgment.^  Like  the  unmerciful  servant  in  the  para- 
ble,^ he  takes  himself  beyond  the  pale  of  mercy  by  his 
refusal  to  submit  his  own  life  to  its  law.  The  Master 
could  only  be  wroth  with  one  who  spurned  the  law  of 

{compassion.  To  receive  the  benefits  of  the  divine  law 
of  love  while  trampling  upon  its  most  elementary  and 
obvious  demands,  is  impossible.     Hence  the  merciless 

1  Matt.  6  :  17,  18. 

2  Matt,  6  :  12.  The  best  modern  texts  have  the  perfect  tense 
(&(p-^Ka/x€v).  Luke,  however,  has  the  present  tense  (d<plofiev). 
The  former  is  probably  the  more  original.  So  Wendt  {Lehre 
Jes7i,  p.  98),  and  Weiss  (Matthdusev. ,  ad  loc). 

3  Jas.  2 :  13.  *  Matt.  18 :  21-35. 


virtues. 


136  THE  TEACHING   OF  \rESUS 

'servant  is  remanded  to  the  operation  of  the  only  law 
which  he  will  recognize  —  the  law  of  strict  retribution 
■and  payment.     "  So,"  adds  Jesus,  "  shall  my  heavenly 
Father  do  unto  you,  if  ye  forgive  not  every  one  his 
brother  from  your  hearts."  ^ 
The  passive        There  are  some  expressions  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  which,  if  taken  by  themselves,  might  seem  to 
favor  the  idea  that  the  life  which  Jesus  required  was 
a  passive  and  quiescent  one.     Certain  it  is  that  Jesus 
commended  the  passive  virtues  —  meekness,  peaceable- 
ness,  and  the  patient  endurance  of  wrong.     He  taught 
that  it  was  better  to  suffer  repeated  injury  than  to  be 
drawn  into  conflict  by  the  spirit  of   revenge.^    And 
does   not  all   experience   prove  that   he  was   right? 
'^Difficult  as  it  is  for  men  to  adopt  his  view  and  practi- 
cally to  proceed  upon  it,  it  is  the  only  principle  which 
the  law  of  love  can  sanction.     The  disposition  to  rush 
into  conflict  with  a  view  to  outdoing  the  injury  and 
wrong  which  one  has  experienced  at  the  hands  of  an- 
"  other  is  a  source  of  untold  mischief  in  human  life. 
It  is  a  method  of  conduct  which  foments  and  fosters 
the  worst  passions  of  men.     It  breeds  jealousy,  cru- 
elty, and  hate.     It  cures  no  evils,  but  is  the  fruitful 
cause  of  evils.     He  who  yields  to  revenge  and  hatred 
is  himself  the  victim  of   sin.     He  is  "overcome   of 
3vil."     He  is  seeking  to  compensate  one  evil  by  an- 
other, probably  by  a  greater   one,  whereas   evil   can 
only  be  overcome  with  good. 
Patience  vs.       In  these  expressions  Jesus  is  no  more  discussing 
vengeance.     ^]^q   abstract    question  of  the   maintenance   of   one's 
rights   than   elsewhere  he  is  discussing  the  abstract 
question  of  divorce.     He  is  contrasting  the  policy  of! 
patience   and   peacemaking  with  the  policy  of  ven-l 
^eance  in   application  to  personal   relations.      ElseJ 
where  he  recognized  the  rights  of  men,  and  asserted 
1  Matt.  18  :  35.  2  Matt.  5 :  38-42. 


TEE  RELIGION  OF  A   GOOD  LIFE  137 

his  own.^  He  resented  the  treatment  which  he  re- 
ceived at  his  trial ,^  but  he  did  not  resort  to  revenge. 
He  would  not  permit  the  use  of  force  in  his  defence ; ' 
but  it  would  be  unwarranted  to  infer  from  this  that 
there  could  be  no  conditions  in  which  the  sword  might 
properly  be  used  in  defence  of  human  rights.  Cer-  Self-respect 
tainly  love  is  not  so  wholly  altruistic  that  it  has  no  pJeserva- 
regard  for  self.  On  the  contrary,  Jesus  commanded  tion  not 
that  one  love  his  neighbor  as  himself  —  not  more  or 
better.  That  there  is  a  proj^er  regard  for  one's  own 
interests  and  rights  is  assumed  in  the  maxim.  Love 
requires  every  man  to  conserve  and  maintain  those 
interests  which  constitute  the  true  value  of  life.  It 
therefore  requires  self-affirmation  and  not  self-efface- 
ment. But  this  self-maintenance  and  self-develop- 
ment will  best  be  secured,  not  by  an  eagerness  to 
repay  every  injury  in  kind,  but  by  that  true  conquest 
over  the  evil  man  which  is  won  only  by  the  spirit  of 
kindness  and  forgiveness. 

The  true  righteousness  requires  that  deeds  of  charity  The  law  for 
or  worship  be  done  with  sincerity  and  simplicity,  and  charftyand 
not  with  ostentation.     When  men  fast  or  pray  or  give  worship, 
alms  in  order  to  attract  attention  to  their  generosity 
or  piety,  they  "  have  no  reward  of  the  Father  which 
is  in  heaven."     They  receive  only  the  reward  which 
they  seek,  and  need  look  for  no  other."*    Jesus  illus- 
trates this  thought  most  fully  in  connection  with  his 
teaching   concerning   prayer.     The  very  meaning   of 
prayer  is  annulled  when  it  is  offered  in  synagogues         ^ 
and  on  street-corners,  with  a  view  to  attracting  the  ' 

attention  of  observers.  Prayer  is  communion  between 
the  soul  and  God,  and  it  best  befits  its  nature  that  it 
should  be  offered  in  secret.^    Nor  does  true  prayer 

1  Lk.  17  : 3 ;  18  :  15.  «  Matt.  26  :  52.  6  Matt.  6  : 6. 

a  Jn.  18:23.  *Matt.  6:2,  6. 


138 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


God  a  will- 
iug  giver. 


Love 
requires 
deeds  and 
services. 


consist  in  the  persistent  repetition  of  the  same  wish 
or  cry,  after  the  manner  of  the  Baal-worshippers.^  Such 
"vain  repetitions''  proceed  upon  the  false,  heathen 
notion  that  the  Deity  is  reluctant  to  grant  his  favors, 
and  that  his  unwilling  mind  is  to  be  won  over  by  the 
wearisome  rehearsal  of  the  same  demand.^  He  who 
knows  God  as  the  heavenly  Father,  however,  will  rest 
in  the  confidence  of  his  willingness  and  desire  to  grant 
to  his  children  all  good  and  needful  things ;  and  will 
ask,  in  the  conviction  that  God  is  more  ready  to  grant 
his  favors  to  his  true  worshippers  than  earthly  parents 
are  to  give  good  gifts  to  their  children.^  Here,  again^ 
it  appears  how  the  religion  of  a  good  life  is  grounded 
in  the  knowledge  of  God  as  the  Father,  and  in  the 
realization  in  thought  and  conduct  of  man's  true  son- 
^hip  to  God. 

The  life  of  love  to  God  and  man  will  be  a  life  of 
action  and  of  service.  In  the  view  of  Jesus,  love  is  an 
energetic  power  which  sets  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul 
in  vigorous  operation.  If  men  truly  love  God,  they 
will  do  his  will.  It  avails  nothing  to  profess  alle- 
giance which  is  not  evidenced  by  obedience.'*  The 
way  of  righteousness  is  a  strait  one,  and  is  entered 
by  a  narrow  gate ;  ^  that  is,  the  Christian  life  is  not  a 
lax  and  lawless  life,  but  one  upon  which  strict  and 
strenuous  demands  are  made.  Accordingly,  Jesus  often 
[depicts  in  his  parables  the  nature  of  the  true  life  as 
[involving  watchfulness,  fidelity,  and  labor.  "  Wh;;^ 
stand  ye  here  all  the  day  idle  ? "  is  the  reproachful 
challenge  of  the  master  in  the  parable  of  the  Vine- 
yard.® Christ's  disciples  are  laborers,^  servants,*  stew- 
ards.*   Their  life  is  one  of  duty  and  responsibility. 


1  1  Kings  18  :  26. 

2  Matt.  6  :  7. 

8  Matt.  6:8;  Lk.  11  :  13. 


4  Matt.  7  :  24-27. 
6  Matt.  7  :  13,  14. 
8  Matt.  20  : 6. 


7  Matt.  20  : 1. 

8  Lk.  12  :  37. 

9  Lk.  16  : 1  sq. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  A   GOOD  LIFE  139 

Yet  its  law  is  not  that  of  a  mechanical  legalism,  but  Grace  vs. 
that  of  grace  and  generosity.  The  faithful  use  of  one  l^s^i^^"^- 
talent  is  as  highly  approved  as  the  corresponding  use 
of  ten.^  Those  who  entered  the  vineyard  at  the  eleventh 
hour  received  the  same  remuneration  as  those  who  be- 
gan work  in  the  early  morning.^  The  labors  of  lov^ 
[are  not  quantitatively  measured.  Their  value  is  deter- 
Imined  by  the  motives  and  dispositions  out  of  which; 
(they  spring.  The  principle  of  the  divine  procedure] 
with  men  is  not  the  legal  principle  of  debit  and  credit, 
but  the  moral  principle  of  grace.  God  treats  men  bet- 
ter than  they  deserve.  But  if  men  will  reap  the  bene- 
fits of  this  divine  law  of  love,  they  must  consent  to  put 
their  own  lives  under  its  sway.  Love  is  a  reciprocal 
principle ;  it  is  a  law  of  right  relationships  among  per-  Conditions 
sons.  Hence  the  bestowment  of  the  benefits  of  thS  gy^iovl^®"^ 
divine  love  is  conditioned  upon  the  attitude  of  hu- 
mility, obedience,  and  kindred  dispositions  on  the  partj 
of  men.  Love  prescribes  the  appropriate  conditions) 
of  bestowing  its  largess.  This  is  the  principle  which 
the  Apostle  Paul  elaborated  with  such  incisiveness  in 
lis  "gospel"  of  grace  and  faith  —  grace,  the  divinS 
procuring  cause  of  salvation;  faith,  the  human  atti^ 
lude  of  receptiveness  and  of  trust.  J 

1  Matt.  26  :  27.  «  Matt.  20  : 9,  15. 


CHAPTER  XII 


THE   MEANS   OF    SALVATION^ 


The  question 
to  be  con- 
sidered. 


The  condi- 
tions of 
salvation. 


We  have  seen  in  the  previous  chapter  what  was  the 
nature  of  the  saved  life ;  we  have  now  to  inquire  by 
what  means  this  salvation  is  wrought.  The  righteous 
life,  or  eternal  life,  as  it  is  commonly  called  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  is  a  life  of  Godlike  love ;  Jesus  is  the 
Messenger  and  Bearer  of  that  life  to  men ;  how  does 
he  procure  it  for  them,  or  arouse  and  foster  it  in  them  ? 
We  will  review  his  own  representations  on  this  sub- 
ject as  reported,  first,  in  the  Synoptics,  and  next  in  the 
Gospel  of  John. 

The  conditions  of  salvation  which  men  are  to  fulfil 
■are  repentance  and  faith.^  In  other  words,  men  must 
jrenounce  and  forsake  the  sinful  life  and  commit  them- 
selves to  the  life  of  obedience  and  sonship  to  God. 
These  thoughts  are  expressed  in  a  great  variety  of 
forms.  Coming  to  Christ,  taking  his  yoke,  learning 
of  him,  taking  up  his  cross,  entering  or  receiving  the 
kingdom  of  God,  —  all  these  are  forms  of  expression 
for  the  appropriation,  in  humility  and  self-surrender, 
of  the  gracious  salvation  which  Christ  came  to  bring. 
He  came  to  save  the  lost,  and  if  men  are  to  receive 

1  General  References :  TJie  N.  T.  Theologies  of  Beyschlag, 
Bk.  I,  ch.  vi,  and  Stevens,  Part  I,  ch.  x ;  The  Johannine  The- 
ology, ch.  vii ;  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II,  184-264 ;  Bruce, 
Kingdom  of  God,  ch.  x;  Cone,  The  Gospel  and  its  Earliest 
Interpretations,  pp.  109-118 ;  Horton,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  pp. 
109-123,  219-2.50  ;  Stalker,  The  Christology  of  Jesus,  ch.  v. 

2  Mk.  1  :  15 ;  Matt.  13  :  15  ;  Mk.  9  :  42. 

140 


THE  MEANS  OF  SALVATION 


141 


By  what 

means 

Christ 


(1)  By 
teaching. 


his  salvation,  they  must  recognize  and  confess  their 
need  of  it.  The  self-satisfied  who  count  themselves 
already  righteous  and  who  believe  that  they  need  no 
repentance  will  have  no  ear  for  his  message,  no  wel^ 
come  for  his  truth. 

By  what  means  does  Christ  propose  to  impart  the 
gift  of  spiritual  life  to  men  ?     The  answer  which  one 
may  gather  from  his  own  words  may  be  summed  up  saves  men 
in  three  statements :  — 

(1)  He  saves  men  by  his  teaching.  He  reveals  God! 
to  man  in  his  instruction  concerning  the  divine  father- 
hood and  providence;  he  reveals  man  to  himself  in 
his  teaching  that  man  is  God's  child  and  finds  his  true 
life  only  in  fellowship  with  God  and  likeness  to  him. 
A  part  of  Jesus'  saving  mission  was  to  preach  good 
tidings  and  to  reveal  to  men  the  mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  great  sign  which  he  gave  was  the 
declaration  of  his  heavenly  truth.  "  Learn  of  me,"  he 
said,  "and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls." ^  He 
taught  the  way  of  God  in  truth,  declaring  to  men  what 
were  the  nature  and  requirements  of  God  and  what 
the  true  principles  and  motives  of  human  life. 

(2)  He  brought  to  bear  upon  men  a  saving  power 
through  his  personal  example  and  influence.  What 
he  taught  was  grounded  in  what  he  was.  The  truth 
which  he  uttered  was  spoken  out  of  his  personal  con- 
sciousness and  experience.  Hence  he  offered  men, 
not  merely  inaxims  or  definitions  of  truth,  but  a  per^ 
sonal  embodiment  of  it  in  liis  own  life  and  work.  He 
asked  not  only  that  his  statements  be  believed,  but 
that  men  receive  him  as  their  Master  and  Lord.  He^ 
claimed  perfectly  to  know  the  Father  and  to  be  the 
Mediator  of  the  Father's  love  to  mankind.  On  the 
ground  of  this  unique  relation  to  God  he  said  to  men : 
"  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 

1  Matt.  11 :  6. 


(2)  By 
personal 
example  and 
influence. 


142 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Christ's 
teaching 
inseparable 
from  his 
person. 


(3)  By  his 
death. 


Jesus 
announces 
the  necessity 
of  his  death. 


''and  I  will  give  you  rest."  ^  He  spoke  the  truth  of  God 
;to  men ;  but  the  deeper  fact  is  that  he  ivas  the  truth  — 
[the  truth  of  God's  mind,  feeling,  and  nature.  ^'The 
words  of  Christ,"  says  Dr.  Hort,  "  were  so  completely 
parts  and  utterances  of  himself,  that  they  had  no 
meaning  as  abstract  statements  of  truth  uttered  by 
him  as  a  divine  organ  or  prophet.  Take  away  himself 
as  the  primary  (though  not  the  ultimate)  subject  of 
every  statement,  and  they  all  fall  to  pieces.  Take 
away  their  cohesion  with  his  acts  and  his  whole  known 
person  and  presence,  and  they  lose  their  power.  The 
Hisciples  did  well  to  gather  from  them  that  he  was 
the  Holy  One  of  God,  the  chosen  and  heavenly  means 
by  which  God  imparts,  not  guidance  only,  or  knowl- 
edge only,  but  the  Life  that  is  above."  ^ 
*~  (3)  To  the  death  of  Christ  a  special  saving  signifi- 
cance is  ascribed.  Quite  early  in  his  ministry  Jesus 
intimated  that  death  would  be  his  fate:  "The  days 
will  come  when  the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away."  ^ 
Later  he  intimated  that  his  death  would  prove  to  be  a 
test  of  attachment  to  him,  drawing  some  to  him  in 
fervent  devotion  and  repelling  others:  "I  came  to 
cast  fire  on  the  earth,  and  what  will  I,  if  it  is  already 
kindled  ?  But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with ; 
and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  ! " 
He  then  declared  that  the  effect  of  his  work  would  be 
the  division  of  households.'*  He  thus  foretold  how 
some  would  glory  in  his  cross  and  passion,  while  to 
others  his  sufferings  would  be  the  ground  of  his 
rejection.* 

But  it  was  only  after  Peter's  confession  of  his 
Messiahship  at  Caesarea  Philippi  that  Jesus  explicitly 
proclaimed  the  certainty  of  his  violent  death :  "  And 

1  Matt.  11 :  28. 

2  The  Way  the  Truth  and  the  Life,  p.  207. 

»  Mk.  2  :  20.  *  Lk.  12  :  49-63.  »  i  Cor.  1  :  18. 


THE  MEANS  OF  SALVATION  143 

he  began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of  man  must 
suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and 
the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and 
after  three  days  rise  again.''  ^  The  announcement 
struck  consternation  to  the  hearts  of  the  disciples,  who 
had  still  continued  to  cherish  the  common  Jewish 
hopes  of  Messiah's  victory  and  reign.  The  notion 
that  the  Messiah  should  suffer  and  die  was  to  them 
intolerable.  It  meant  that  he  should  fail  to  establish 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  that  was  contrary  to  all  their 
deepest  convictions  concerning  Messiah's  character 
and  work,  and  a  contradiction  to  the  promise  of  God, 
as  they  understood  it.  Hence  Peter's  protest :  "  Be  it 
far  from  thee.  Lord ;  this  shall  never  be  unto  thee."  ^ 
To  this,  however,  Jesus  replied  that  the  path  of  suf-  Required  by 
fering  was  the  divinely  appointed  way  in  which  he  gacrlfi^e^^ 
must  walk,  and  that  his  disciples  must  not  expect  to 
derive  any  worldly  or  political  advantages  from  their 
connection  with  him,  but  must  be  prepared,  instead, 
to  suffer  for  his  sake  and  to  bear  a  heavy  cross  of  self- 
denial  in  his  service.^  For  sacrifice  and  service  are 
the  laws  of  his  kingdom,  and  he  who  would  save  his 
life  must  give  it  in  self-denying  love.* 

Two  other  passages  bear  upon  Jesus'  view  of  his  His  "cup" 
approaching  death.  When  James  and  John  expressed  t£m!'"^^^ 
the  wish  that  they  might  have  places  of  honor  and 
power  in  his  future  world-kingdom,  he  replied :  "  Ye 
know  not  what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup 
that  I  drink  ?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that 
I  am  baptized  with  ?  And  they  said  unto  him,  We 
are  able.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  The  cup  that  I 
drink  ye  shall  drink  ;  and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am 
baptized  withal  shall  ye  be  baptized :  but  to  sit  on  my 
right  hand  or  on  my  left  hand  is  not  mine  to  give : 

1  Mk.  8  :  31.  «  Mk.  8  :  33,  34. 

3  Matt.  16 :  22.  *  Mk.  8  :  36. 


144 


TEE  TEACUING  OF  JESUS 


Greatness 
by  service. 


The  blood 
shed  for 
many. 


Four  state- 
ments con- 
cerning the 
saving 
significance 
of  his  death. 


but  it  is  for  them  for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared."  ^ 
He  thus  set  in  sharpest  contrast  their  view  of  the 
kingdom  and  its  triumphs  and  his  own.  Not  power 
and  glory,  but  humility  and  service,  are  to  be  the 
marks  of  his  reign.  Greatness  in  his  kingdom  is  to 
be  won,  not  by  force,  but  by  service.  He  continued : 
"  Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over 
the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them;  and  their  great  ones 
exercise  authority  over  them.  But  it  is  not  so  among 
you :  but  whosoever  would  become  great  among  you, 
shall  be  your  minister :  and  whosoever  would  be  first 
among  you,  shall  be  servant  of  all.  For  verily  the 
pon  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
piinister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."^ 
The  other  passage  is  the  word  of  Jesus  at  the  institu- 
tion of  the  memorial  supper:  "This  is  my  blood  of 
the  covenant  which  is  shed  for  many."^  Matthew's 
version  of  the  words  is  more  explicit  in  its  reference 
to  the  relation  between  the  death  of  Jesus  and  salvar 
tion  from  sin :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant, 
which  is  shed  for  many  unto  remission  ofsins.^^  * 
p  What  we  have,  then,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  con- 
Icerning  the  death  of  the  Messiah  is,  first,  the  an- 
Inouncement  that  the  hostility  of  the  rulers  would 
Icertainly  culminate  in  his  death;  second,  the  assertion 
that  this  result  was  providentially  appointed  ;  third, 
that  the  law  of  self-giving  is  the  general  law  of 
Christ's  kingdom  and  that  his  disciples  must  there- 
fore be  ready  to  give  their  lives  in  self-denying  service, 
and,  if  need  be,  in  suffering ;  fourth,  that  the  death  of 
the  Messiah  was  to  be,  not,  as  they  feared,  an  occasion 
of  defeat  and  disaster  to  the  disciples,  but  a  means 
of  incalculable  benefit.  His  blood  is  to  be  shed  on 
behalf  of,  that  is,  for  the  advantage  of,  many;   his 


iMk.  10:38-41. 
2  Mk.  10  :  42-45. 


8Mk.  14:24. 
4  Matt.  26  :  28. 


TEE  MEANS   OF  SALVATION  145 

death  will  ransom,  that  is,  deliver,  many.  And  from 
what  should  it  deliver  them,  if  not  from  the  power  of 
sin?  To  what  result  could  such  deliverance  look 
except  to  that  which  Matthew  specifies,  namely,  "  to 
the  remission  of  sins  "  ? 

The  question  now  arises :  How  does  the  death  of  How  does 
Christ  avail  to  deliver  men  from  sin  ?     That  the  pas-  saver*^ 
sages  reviewed  imply,  and  even  in  some  cases  state, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  has  saving  power,  is  certain. 
But  it  is  equally  certain  that  they  do  not  state  why  or 
how  his  death  should  possess  such  value  or  significance. 
We  are  left  to  infer  the  answer.     Let  me  enumerate  Theories, 
some  of  the  principal  replies  which  have  been  given 
to  the  question. 

(1)  The  oldest  theory  fixed  upon  the  word  "  ransom  "  (i)  The  ran- 
and  conceived  of  Christ's  life  as  a  price  paid  to  pro-  ^°°^  theory, 
cure  the  release  of  man  from  sin.     The  most  consistenf 

form  of  the  theory  represented  this  price  as  paid  to 
Satan  to  induce  him  to  release  man  from  his  power^ 
This  theory  is  built  upon  the  implications  of  a  figura- 
tive word. 

(2)  The  meaning  is  that  Jesus  gives  his  life  for  manyf  (2)  Delivers 
(that  is,  for  his  disciples)  as  a  means  of  protecting!  o?death.' 
them,  or  delivering  them,  from  the  fear  of  death.     The) 

death  of  Jesus  is  an  example  of  supreme  devotion  to 
God,  by  the  inspiration  and  imitation  of  which  men 
are  enabled  to  rise  into  the  life  of  obedience,  and  are 
thus  delivered  from  the  dominion  of  evil. 

(3)  By  his  death  Christ  broke  the  bonds  which  held 
his  disciples  in  captivity  to  low  and  earthly  concep- 
tions of  his   salvation.     For  example,   he  ransomed  life. 
James  and  John  from  their  worldly  ambition  to  occupy 
seats  of  honor  in  his  kingdom. 

(4)  Christ  was  ready  to  endure  whatever  was  neces-  dentaUo 
sary  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  Messianic  calling.     He  establishing 
had  come  to  establish  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  when  dom.^"^" 


(3)  Saves 
from  false 
views  of 


146 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


(5)  Repre- 
sentative 
and  vica- 
rious. 


statements 
according 
to  the  fourth 
Gospel. 


he  found  that  it  was  only  by  a  career  of  suffering,  cul^ 
minating  in  death,  that  he  could  accomplish  his  God-| 
given  task,  he  trustfully  accepted  his  fate  as  part  of  a  I 
loving  Father's  plan.  He  saves  men  by  performing] 
his  divine  life-task,  which  required  the  endurance  of 
suffering  and  death.  He  did  his  work,  and  that  work 
involved  the  cross. 

(5)  The  death  of  Christ  was  representative  an^ 
vicarious,  a  proof  at  once  of  the  divine  love  and  a  disj 
closure  of  the  evil  of  sin  and  of  God's  holy  displeasurel 
against  it.  This  view  interprets  the  relation  between| 
Christ's  death  and  salvation  from  sin  in  accord  with 
Paul's  teaching  that  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  de- 
clared the  righteousness  of  God,  and  so  safeguarded  the 
divine  self-consistency  in  forgiveness. 

Before  commenting  on  the  question  which  has  been 
raised,  let  us  briefly  review  the  representation  of  Jesus 
concerning  the  import  of  his  death  as  reported  in  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

Christ  describes  himself  as  the  bearer  and  giver  ol 
life ;  ^  as  the  true  bread  of  God  which  came  down  f roml 
heaven  and  gives  life  to  the  world ;  ^  as  the  good  shep-( 
herd  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep.^  He  refers! 
^n  highly  mystic  language,  to  the  eating  of  his  flesh  and 
the  drinking  of  his  blood,  that  is,  the  appropriation  of 
jbis  very  self,  as  necessary  to  salvation.'*  He  speaks  oT 
laying  down  his  life  for  his  friends,^  and  illustrates  the 
saving  value  of  his  death  by  this  analogical  saying, 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  grain  of  wheat 
fall  into  the  earth  and  die,  it  abideth  by  itself  alone ;; 
but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit.  "  ^  He  also  speaki* 
of  drawing  all  men  unto  him  when  he  shall  have  been 
lifted  up.^     His  cross,  which  to  men  is  the  symbol  of 


1  Jn.  5  :  19  sq. 

2  Jn.  6 :  32  sq. 


8  Jn.  10 :  11. 
Jn.  6  :  53,  54. 
7  Jn.  12  :  32. 


6  Jn.  15  :  13. 
6  Jn.  12  :  24. 


THE  MEANS  OF  SALVATION  147 

his  humiliation,  is  really  the  means  of  his  exaltatioS 
to  a  place  of  influence  and  power  from  which  he  will 
draw  the  hearts  of  men  to  himself  in  interest,  gratij 
tude,  and  love.  • 

What  view,  then,  shall  we  form,  from  the  reported  Resume, 
words  of  Jesus  himself,  of  the  saving  import  of  his 
death?    As  the  subject  does  not  here  admit  of  extended 
discussion,  I  will  present  the  following  suggestions  :  — 

(1)  It  is  necessary  to  consider  the  words  of  Jesus  Jesus' 
apart  from  all  subsequent  interpretations  of  the  mean-  thi^uished 
ing  of  his  death.     It  was  soon  construed  in  terms  of  from  later 
the  Jewish  sacrificial  system.     Did  Jesus  conceive  or 
present  it  in  that  light  ? 

(2)  In  all  the  sayings  of  Jesus  reviewed  we  find  none  Does  not 
of  the  Jewish  altar  terms.   Of  the  technical  terms  which  ^Irms*^"^ 
are  common  in  theological  discussions  of  the  death  of 
Christ — atonement,  penalty,  substitution,  satisfaction, 
expiation,  and  the  like  —  we  find  but  one,  '^ransom," 

and  that  is  used  in  the  untechnical  sense  of  a  means  of 
saving  or  of  recovering. 

[(3)  Jesus  did  not  isolate  his  death  from  his  life  and  jHis  death 
work,  and  attribute  to  it  a  separate  saving  power.     He  J°^^^*j^^^{g*®^ 
viewed  his  death  as   the  culmination  of  his   saving  life-work  in 
mission.     His   whole  life-work   was   saving,  and  his  S®°®^^  *     . 
death  was  the  culminating  act  of  that  life  of  self-giving. 
He  came  to  seek  and  to  save,  to  minister  and  to  give 
his  life  for  men.     It  is  clear  that  the  giving  of  his  life 
means  more  than  the  act  or  experience  of  dying.     This 
giving  up  of  life  is  closely  correlated  with  his  whole 
Jife-work  of  serving  love.     Just  so  in  the  fourth  Gos-. 
pel.     While  still  living  and  laboring  among  men,  he 
speaks  of  himself  as  the  bestower  of  eternal  life  and 
of  a  present  giving  of  his  life  for  others.     He  was 
even  then  the  bread  of  life.     He  was  already  saving 
men.    He  could  not,  therefore,  have  regarded  his  pro- 
spective death  as  the  sole  saving  deed. 


148 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


A  part  of 
his  saving 
mission. 


An  interpre- 
tation of 
God. 


Its  relation 
to  God's 
grace  and 
holiness 
and  to 
human  sin. 


Its  relation 
to  the 
ethical 
nature  of 
God. 


(4)  It  follows  that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  to  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  his  whole  saving  mission  on 
earth  as  he  himself  conceived  it.  His  death  was  a^ 
part  of  the  fulfilment  of  his  vocation.  The  object  of  I 
his  death  was  the  same  as  the  object  of  his  life.  He 
did  not  live  for  one  end  and  die  for  another.  Such  an 
idea  would  mar  the  unity  of  his  saving  work,  and  is 
without  the  slightest  support  in  his  own  teaching. 

(5)  Now  the  object  of  Christ's  life-work  was  to  re^ 
veal  God,  to  enable  men  to  know  God  as  their  Father,! 
and  then  to  live  as  his  true  sons.  Christ  was  the  rej 
vealer  of  God — the  translation  of  God  into  terms  of 
human  life.  All  that  he  did  and  experienced  had  its 
meaning  as  a  part  of  this  unveiling  of  God  to  man  and 
Ehe  disclosure  of  man  to  himself.  In  this  purpose  the 
Ideath  of  Christ  at  the  hands  of  sinners  must  also  have 
toad  its  place. 

(6)  We  are,  therefore,  to  see  in  the  death  of  Christ 
a  revelation  of  God  —  the  consummation  of  that  dis- 
closure of  God  which  Christ  came  to  make.  And  what 
of  God's  nature  and  feeling  does  the  death  of  Christ 
idisclose  ?  It  is,  for  one  thing,  Christ's  supreme  testi- 
mony to  the  deep  concern  of  God  for  man.  It  also 
expresses  what  his  whole  experience  reveals,  the 
radical  contrast  of  sin  and  holiness.  The  cross  is  the 
.witness  on  the  field  of  human  history  to  the  affront 
Sdone  by  sin  to  the  holy  love  of  God.  Sin  nailed  the 
Holy  One  of  God  to  a  cross  of  shame.  How  else  is 
sin's  nature  and  heinousness  so  clearly  disclosed  ? 
Sut  to  this  cross  the  Holy  One  of  God  willingly  went 
ifor  love  of  men.  How  else  is  God's  nature  so  effec- 
tively revealed  ? 

(7)  Christ's  death,  then,  was  a  part  of  the  realization 
of  his  saving  purpose,  and  his  saving  purpose  was 
jgrounded  in  the  divine  nature.  His  death  must,  there- 
ffore,  be  construed  in  the  light  of  the  idea  of  God  which 


THE  MEANS  OF  SALVATION  149 

he  came  to  reveal  and  to  render  effective  among  men. 
The  death  of  Christ  can  have  no  meaning  which  is 
incongruous  with  the  Christian  concept  of  God  of  which 
it  is  a  revelation.  It  is  a  part  of  Christ's  saving  dis- 
closure of  God.  It  reveals  at  once  the  love  of  God 
which  would  stoop  to  suffer  with  and  for  man,  and  the 
holiness  of  God  which  makes  its  uncompromising  pro- 
test against  sin ;  and  on  this  background  of  holy  love 
it  sets  the  dark  enormity  of  sin,  thereby  exposing  its 
;rue  nature  and  expressing  its  ill  desert.  Thus  in  the 
death  of  Christ,  regarded  as  a  part  of  his  mission  on 
earth,  we  see  the  consummation  of  that  revelation  of 
God  which  he  came  to  make.  In  it  the  total  nature 
of  God  is  revealed  and  therefore  satisfied.  In  it  the 
nature  of  sin  is  disclosed  and  therefore  condemned. 
The  display  of  holy  love  in  the  treatment  of  a  sinful 
world  is  sin's  most  effective  condemnation.  God  is 
satisfied  only  by  revealing  his  perfections  and  by  real- 
izing the  ends  which  are  grounded  in  his  holy  love. 
In  this  sense  we  must  see,  in  the  saving  work  of  Christ, 
culminating  in  his  death,  the  highest  satisfaction, 
because  the  consummate  expression,  of  the  total  nature 
Df  God. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE   BELIEVING   COMMUNITY* 


Did  Jesus 
propose  to 
found  a 
church  ? 


Earlier  and 
later  mean- 
ings of 
"church." 


The  New 

Testament 

Ecclesia. 


Did  Christ  intend  to  establish  a  church,  a  visible 
outward  society  ?  Some  reply  that  he  manifested  no 
such  intention ;  others  that  the  founding  of  a  church 
was  the  chief  end  of  all  his  life-work.  We  shall  seek 
to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  possible,  what  data  bearing 
upon  this  question  are  furnished  in  the  Gospels. 

The  question  just  stated  is  likely  to  be  somewhat 
misleading,  and  the  discussion  of  it  involved  in  con- 
fusion, in  consequence  of  the  different  associations 
which  the  word  "  church  "  bears  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment age  and  in  our  time.  Dr.  Hort  very  wisely 
begins  his  discussion  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  pointing  out  that  the  word  "  church  "  "  carries 
with  it  associations  derived  from  the  institutions  and 
doctrines  of  later  times,  and  this  cannot  at  present, 
without  a  constant  mental  effort,  be  made  to  convey 
the  full  and  exact  force  which  originally  belonged  to 
ecclesia  "  (the  New  Testament  word  which  is  rendered 
"  church  ").^  Ecclesia  was  the  Greek  translation  of  the  1 
Old  Testament  word  for  the  assembly  or  congregation  J 

1  General  References  :  The  K  T.  Theologies  of  Weiss,  I, 
Pt.  I,  ch.  V,  Beyschlag,  I,  Bk.  I,  ch.  viii,  and  Stevens,  Pt.  I, 
ch.  xi ;  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II,  340-383 ;  Bruce,  The 
Training  of  the  Twelve  and  The  Kingdom  of  God,  ch.  xi ; 
Horton,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  pp.  125-137 ;  Hort,  The  Christian 
Ecclesia,  Lects.  I  and  II ;  Seeley,  Ecce  Homo,  Pt.  I ;  Gayford, 
article  "Church,"  in  Hastings'  B.  D. 

2  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  p.  1. 

150 


THE  BELIEVING  COMMUNITY  151 

of  Israel.  Indeed,  in  the  earlier  English  translations 
of  the  New  Testament,  the  word  was  rendered  "  con- 
gregation "  and  not  "  church " ;  even  in  Matt.  16 :  18 
we  read  in  the  Bishop's  Bible :  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  congregation."  Not  until  the  appearance  of 
King  James's  version  in  1611  —  our  so-called  "com- 
mon "  or  "  authorized  "  version  —  was  the  earlier  ren- 
dering of  ecdesia  wholly  supplanted  by  the  word 
"  church."  ^  The  mere  matter  of  translation,  however, 
is  of  minor  importance.  The  main  point  is  that  ecdesia 
means  rather  an  assembly,  congregation,  brotherhood, 
or  community,  than  an  outwardly  organized  soci- 
ety with  officers  and  laws;  it  is  a  less  institutional 
word  than  "  church,"  as  now  employed.  Hence,  when 
it  is  asked :  Did  Christ  found  a  church  ?  it  makes  all 
possible  difference  whether  "  church  "  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  the  New  Testament  ecdesia,  or  with  some  of 
its  modern  connotations. 

The  word  "  ecdesia  "  occurs  but  twice  in  the  tradition  The  two 
of  the  Lord's  words,  both  times  in  the  first  Gospel,  passages. 
The  passages  are  as  follows  :  "  And  if  thy  brother  sin 
against  thee,  go,  show  him  his  fault  between  thee  and 
him  alone :  if  he  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother. 
But  if  he  hear  thee  not,  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more, 
that  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses  or  three  every  word 
may  be  established.  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them, 
tell  it  unto  the  church :  ^  and  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the 
church  ^  also,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and 
the  publican.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  What  things 
soever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven : 
and  what  things  soever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven."  ^  "  And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church;   and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail 

1  See  Hort,  op.  cit..,  p.  2. 

2  R.  V. ,  margin  :  congregation.  «  Matt.  18 :  15-18. 


152  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

against  it.  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven:  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  ^ 
Found  in  The  fact  that  these  striking  sayings  are  found  in 

Matthew  Matthew  alone  is  regarded  by  some  as  casting  sus- 
picion upon  their  genuineness.  No  positive  evidence, 
however,  has  been  adduced  against  them,  and  while  we 
cannot  explain  their  absence  from  the  other  Gospels, 
we  have  to  remember  that  both  the  first  and  third 
evangelists  used  sources  not  available  to  the  others. 
Luke  has  many  striking  sayings  of  Jesus  which  were 
unknown  to  Mark  or  Matthew.  Let  us  inquire,  then, 
what  the  passages,  taken  as  they  stand,  imply  respect- 
ing the  ecclesia  of  Jesus. 
Import  of  ^  The  first  passage  which  we  have  quoted  relates  to 
^^att,     .  o-  reconcilmtion  among^^C^^  brethren.     The  passage 

in  Luke  ^  which  is  parallel  to  Matt.  18 :  15,  16  relates 
only  to  private  reconciliation,  and  makes  no  reference 
to  the  mediation  of  the  Church.  It  is,  however,  en- 
tirely natural  to  suppose  that  Jesus  gave  some  such 
practical  recommendation  as  that  recorded  in  Matt. 
The  three  18 :  17.  The  simple  rules  of  procedure  in  a  case 
rules  given.  ^}jgpg  Q^ie  disciple  has  done  another  an  injury  and  an 
alienation  has  ensued  are  three :  In  the  first  place, 
the  offended  party  shall  privately  confer  with  the 
offender  and  seek  to  make  him  realize  the  nature  of 
his  fault  (v.  15).  If  this  effort  fails,  then  let  another 
conference  be  held  in  the  presence  of  two  or  three 
other  brethren  who  are  competent  to  judge  and  to 
advise  upon  the  merits  of  the  case  (v.  16).  If  now 
the  guilty  party  still  refuses  to  confess  his  fault,  let 
the  case  be  brought  before  the  entire  assembly  of 
believers.  If  the  company  as  a  whole  confirms  the 
accusing  judgment  reached  by  the  two  or  three  wit- 

1  Matt.  16  :  18,  19.  «  17  : 3,  4. 


TEE  BELIEVING  COMMUNITY  153 

nesses,  and  the  offender  still  continues  defiant,  he 
shall  then  be  regarded  as  self-excluded  from  the  fel- 
lowship (v.  17).  This  verdict  of  the  congregation, 
called  "  binding  and  loosing,"  shall  be  divinely  rati- 
fied (v.  18).  The  congregation  is  intrusted  with  the 
right  and  the  duty  to  uphold  the  law  of  its  own  being, 
and  to  purge  itself  of  those  who  repudiate  the  princi- 
ples on  which  its  fellowship  is  founded. 

This  passage  clearly  illustrates  what  is  meant  by  Binding  and 
binding  and  loosing.  It  was  a  technical  Babbinic  ^^osmg. 
term  for  forbidding  and  permittrng.^  The  congrega- 
tion must  determine  what  was .B^cordant  with  the 
principles  of  Christ  and  what  was  hostile,  to  his  spirit. 
This  was  the  law  of  the  brotherhood's  self-preserva- 
tion. Jesus  gave  no  code  of  rules;  he  required  his 
followers  to  learn  and  appreciate  the  nature  and 
demands  of  the  Christian  life  and  to  apply  its  spirit- 
ual laws.  He  required  that  his  disciples  should  be 
aware  of  the  genius  of  the  Gospel,  and  should  be  able 
to  test  men  and  actions  in  accordance  with  it.  Hence] 
they  were  to  prohibit  or  to  allow  according  as  the  lawj 
of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  required.  This  right 
and  duty  the  congregation  of  believers  constantly 
exercised.  They  bound,  that  is,  forbade,  the  circum- 
cision of  Gentile  believers ;  ^  they  loosed,  that  is,  per- 
mitted, the  ceremony  of  purification  on  the  part  of 
Paul  and  four  other  brethren,  out  of  deference  to  the 
prejudices  of  the  Jews.^ 

•    These  considerations  throw  light  upon  the  words  of  Peter, 
Christ  to  Peter  after  his  confession  of  his  Messiah-  apostl?' 
jhip.*    The  confession  marked  an  epoch  in  the  life- 
wrork  of  Jesus.    It  was  an  evidence  of  the  divine 

1  This  usage  is  fully  illustrated  in  Lightfoot's  Horoe  He- 
braicoe,  II,  2-37-240  (Oxford  ed.). 
a  Acts  15:  28;  Gal.  2:6. 
»  Acts  21 :  23-26.  *  Matt.  16  :  17-19. 


154 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


bnlightenment  by  which  the  import  of  his  life  was 
beginning  to  be  apprehended.  It  called  forth  the 
reply  from  Christ  that  upon  this  representative  con- 
fessor he  would  build  his  "  church,"  and  that  to  him 
le  would  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  and  the  power 
)f  binding  and  loosing.^  In  Greek  there  is  a  play,  in 
this  passage,  on  the  name  of  Peter,  whose  force  is  lost 
in  translation.  The  name  "  Peter "  means  rock,  and 
the  words,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock,"  are 
equivalent  to  saying :  Peter,  you  have  made  good  the 
neaning  of  your  name ;  ^  you  have  proven  yourself, 
3y  your  confession,  to  be  the  rock-apostle,  the  cor- 
ler-stone  of  the  brotherhood.  Upon  Peter,  then,  as 
confessing  Jesus'  Messiahship  and  as  voicing  the  con- 
pction  of  all,  Christ  will  build  his  congregation. 

We  have  seen  what  is  the  meaning  of  binding  and 
loosing.  The  phrase  is  here  parallel  to  the  term, 
"  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  terms  denote 
the  functions  of  spiritual  legislation  and  judgment,  an 
illustration  of  which  is  the  office  committed  to  the 
congregation  in  Matt.  18:18:  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
What  things  soever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven  :  and  what  things  soever  ye  shall 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  In  this 
passage,  it  should  be  noted,  the  function  which  is 
ascribed  to  Peter  in  Matt.  16 :  19  is  just  as  emphatically 
committed  to  the  body  of  disciples  as  a  whole.  This 
fact  accords  with  the  circumstance  that,  in  the  passage 
under  review,  Peter  is  regarded  not  individually,  but 
representatively.  The  strength  of  the  brotherhood 
shall  be  in  the  spirit  of  devotion  and  enthusiasm  ex- 
pressed in  Peter's  representative  confession. 
J  The  place  of  Peter  in  the  early  Christian  community 
Continued  to  be  what  it  was  on  that  notable  day  at 
psesarea  Philippi,  that  of  a  primus  inter  pares.     He 

1  Matt.  16  :  18,  19.  2  Cf.  Jn.  1 :  42. 


>' 


THE  BELIEVING  COMMUNITY  155 

was  the  natural  and  acknowledged  leader  of  the  apos- 
bolic  company.  In  all  the  lists  of  the  apostles  his 
aame  is  first  mentioned.^  It  was  he  who  proclaimed 
bhe  providential  meaning  of  the  events  of  Pentecost.^ 
It  was  he  to  whom  was  accorded  the  privilege  of  open- 
ing "  a  door  of  faith  unto  the  Gentiles."  ^  These  are 
illustrations  of  the  "primacy"  of  Peter  —  the  only 
primacy  which  was  recognized  in  the  apostolic  age. 
t  was  a  primacy  of  position  and  influence,  such  as  is 

most  always  accorded  to  some  one  person  whenever 

company  of  men  organize  or  cooperate  in  a  common 

ork. 

The  idea  that  upon  Peter  was  bestowed  any  official  No  official 
primacy  is  wholly  contrary  to  the  facts  recorded  in  gfyg^"*^ 
the  New  Testament.     We  have  seen  that  there  is  no  Peter. 

ower  attributed  to  him  which  is  not  elsewhere  com- 
Jmitted  to  the  whole  believing  community.     Whatever 
he  sitting  upon  thrones,  referred  to  in  Matt.  19 :  28, 

ay  mean,  it  was  an  honor  which  was  promised  to  the 
ther  apostles  as  well  as  to  Peter.  Though  Peter  was 
one  of  the  "  pillars  "  of  the  primitive  Church,*  yet  it 
appears  to  have  been  James,  not  Peter,  who  presided 
at  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  announced  its  deci- 
sion.'^ On  no  occasion  was  Peter  ever  credited  with 
any  special  authority.  His  fellow  Jewish  Christians 
freely  criticised  him  when  they  thought  him  in  the 
svTong,®  and  Paul  had  no  hesitation  in  "  resisting  him 
:o  the  face  because  he  stood  condemned"  by  his  action 
it  Antioch  in  withdrawing  from  the  fellowship  of  the 
Grentile  converts.' 

We  have  reviewed  the  only  two  passages  in  which  The 
Jesus  is  reported  to  have  said  anything  of  a  "  church,"  ^hHstian 

1  Mk.  3  :  16  ;  Matt.  10  : 2  ;  Lk.  6  :  14  ;  Acts  1  :  13.  community. 

2  Acts  2.  6  Acts  16  :  19-21. 
•Acts  14: 27.  «  Acts  11:  2,  3. 

*  Gal.  2:9.  '  Gal.  2  :  11. 


156  THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

md  we  have  seen  that  the  word  used  to  describe  it 
lesid)  is  a  social  rather  than  an  institutional  one. 
Did  Christ,  then,  mean  to  found  a  "  church  "  ?  Let  us 
break  up  the  question  into  several  others,  and  briefly 
consider  them  in  order.  AVhat  is  the  relation  between 
the  ecclesia  of  disciples  and  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Are 
there  reasons  for  thinking  that  Jesus  contemplated  a 
society  of  disciples,  a  community  held  together  by  com- 
mon ties  and  interests  ?  Was  the  subsequent  establish- 
ment of  formally  organized  and  officered  "  churches  " 
in  line  with  Christ's  purpose,  and  a  legitimate  devel- 
opment from  the  primitive  Christian  brotherhood? 
Church  and  If  the  terms  "kingdom  of  God"  and  "  ecclesia '^ 
ing  om.  Yi^^  represented  for  Jesus  essentially  the  same  idea, 
it  is  difficult  to  explain  why  the  former  term  should 
occur  112  times  and  the  latter  but  twice  in  the 
-  Gospels.  We  must  conclude  that  there  is  a  difference 
between  these  terms,  and  that  the  kingdom  represents 
the  more  characteristic  conception  of  Jesus.  That  dif- 
ference, however,  is  not  easily  defined.  The  kingdom 
represents  so  large  and  comprehensive  a  fact,  while  ec- 
clesia appears  so  infrequently  and  so  wholly  without 
definition,  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  rela- 
tion of  the  two  conceptions.  Some  general  statements, 
however,  may  be  made.  The  kingdom  is  the  "invisi- 
ble Church."  The  assembly  of  disciples  can  never 
adequately  or  accurately  represent  the  kingdom.  Some 
rho  form  part  of  the  ecclesia  will  prove  inconstant 
md  even  counterfeit  Christians,  and  will  therefore  form 
10  part  of  the  kingdom  ;  there  will  be  tares  in  the  wheat. 
fThere  will  also  be  those  who  live  under  the  law  of 

the  kingdom,  but  who,  for  one  reason  or  another,  are 
lot  associated  with  the  visible  ecclesia.  The  congre- 
gation can  never  more  than  partially  represent  the 
kingdom.  While  Jesus  was  on  earth,  there  were  sons 
lof  the  kingdom  outside  the  limits   of  Judaism  who 


hood 
necessary. 


THE  BELIEVING  COMMUNITY  157 

could  not,  therefore,  have  formed  any  part  of  his 
ecclesia  at  the  time,  scattered  children  of  God  whom 
Jesus  would  yet  gather  together  into  one  fellowship.^ 
Ideally,  no  doubt,  the  ecclesia  should  represent  the 
kingdom ;  but,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  can  never 
do  so  perfectly.  The  kingdom  belongs  to  the  realm 
pi  the  spirit  and  the  tests  of  membership  in  it  are  ab- 
solute; the  ecclesia  is  the  human  society  into  which 
men  who  profess  to  acknowledge  the  law  of  the  king- 
dom and  the  rule  of  the  King  unite  themselves  in 
order  to  give  the  truths  of  the  kingdom  visible  con- 
crete expression  in  human  life  and  action.  Now  such 
expression  of  ideal  truth  will  always  be  partial,  be- 
cause marked  by  human  imperfection. 

That  Jesus  expected  his  followers  to  form  a  distinct  A  brother- 
society  or  brotherhood,  with  bonds  of  union  peculiar 
to  themselves,  is  probable  from  his  method,  quite  apart 
from  the  twofold  use  of  the  word  ecclesia  which  we 
tiave  considered.  He  called  twelve  men  into  permanent 
issociation  with  himself,  and  commissioned  them  to 
preach  and  to  heal  in  his  name.^  Though  the  duties 
of  the  apostles  were  not  sharply  defined,  it  is  evident 
that  Jesus  regarded  them  as  having  a  certain  official 
relation  to  himself  as  his  associates  and  messengers. 
The  apostles  were  the  chief  human  agents  in  teaching 
Christ^s  truth  and  in  founding  churches  after  the 
Master's  departure ;  and  such,  we  cannot  doubt,  they 
were  intended  to  be.  Here,  then,  we  see  the  nucleus  of 
jan  organization  or  congeries  of  organizations.  The  life  Grounds 
jof  faith  and  love  needed  a  visible  form  of  manifesta-  necessity 
tion.  Provision  must  be  made  for  common  worship, 
fellowship,  and  work.  The  truth  of  the  kingdom 
reigning  in  the  hearts  of  men,  will  have  its  social  ex- 
pression,  however  inadequate  such  expression  may 

iJn.  10:16;  11:63. 

a  Mk.  3  :  13-19 ;  6  : 7-13 ;  Lk.  6  :  12-16. 


158 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Import 
of  the 

"great  com- 
mission." 


prove  to  be.  Although  the  Gospels  do  not  intimate 
that  Jesus  took  any  steps  to  organize  his  disciples 
into  a  formally  constituted  society,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  he  contemplated  this  result  as  the  conse- 
quence of  the  kingdom's  nature  and  working.  That 
the  kingdom  may  most  effectually  leaven  the  life  of 
the  world,  it  must  avail  itself  of  the  power  which  re- 
sides in  the  social  instincts  of  men  and  in  the  common 
sympathies  and  increased  activity  which  these  social 
instincts  foster.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  more  than 
jany  church  or  all  churches,  but  the  kingdom  needs 
land  uses  churches  as  means  essential  to  the  accom- 
jplishment  of  its  ends. 

What  was  the  relation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
of  the  outward  organization  which  should  promote  it, 
to  the  Jewish  national  church  ?  The  answer  is  fur- 
nished by  Jesus'  principle  of  fulfilment.  The  Jewish 
theocracy  was  the  provisional  form  in  which  the  rule 
Df  God  among  men  had  been  expressed  and  realized 
In  Israel.  The  kingdom  and  the  church  which  Jesus 
would  found  should  be  higher  forms  for  the  attain- 
ment of  the  same  great  ends  on  a  far  wider  scale. 
The  theocracy  was  local  and  national ;  it  was  identi- 
5ed  with  a  certain  form  of  civil  and  social  organization. 
The  commonwealth  of  Jesus  was  to  be  universal  and 
spiritual.  The  call  of  a  publican,  Levi,  or  Matthew,^ 
into  the  apostolate  was  an  indication  that  neither 
national  nor  social  distinctions  were  to  condition  mem- 
bership in  his  society.  His  followers,  on  the  contrary, 
kvere  to  be  "the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  light  of  the 
[world."  ^  There  is  no  note  of  exclusiveness  or  of  limi- 
tation in  all  the  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the 
kingdom  and  its  manifestations. 

With  this  conclusion  agrees  the  language  of  the 
"great  commission."^     "All  the  nations"  are  within 

1  Mk.  2  :  14.  2  Matt.  5  :  13,  14.  »  Matt.  28  :  19,  20. 


THE  BELIEVING  COMMUNITY  159 

the  scope  of  Jesus'  purpose  of  salvation.  Whatever 
objections  may  be  made  to  the  originality  of  this  pas- 
sage/ there  can  be  no  doubt  that  its  note  of  universal- 
.ty  accords  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus'  teaching  as  a 
svhole.  If  the  passage  in  some  of  its  terms  reflects 
the  ecclesiastical  usage  of  the  later  apostolic  period, 
its  substance  accords  perfectly  with  the  genius  of 
Jesus'  teaching  and  work.  The  scope  of  his  mission 
and  kingdom  was  world-wide. 

History  presents  no  greater  marvel  than  the  found-  The  par- 
ing and  perpetuity  of  the  Christian  Church.  Think  the'church. 
of  a  man  living  in  a  remote  Roman  province,  wielding 
no  sword,  leading  no  popular  uprising,  exciting  so 
little  attention  in  the  world  that  his  name  scarcely 
appears  in  the  literature  of  his  age,  yet  inaugurating 
a  movement  which  has  transformed  the  world.  The 
history  of  the  Church  is  not,  indeed,  adapted  to  excite 
in  us  unmixed  approval  and  praise.  Great  evils,  as 
well  as  great  benefits,  have  attended  it.  But,  apart 
from  any  estimate  of  the  relative  good  and  evil  which 
are  blended  with  its  life,  the  persistence  and  preva- 
lence of  the  Church  do  show  what  mighty  movements 
in  man's  religious,  moral,  social,  and  political  life  owe 
their  origin  to  the  forces  set  in  motion  by  the  Man  of 
Nazareth. 

The  commonwealth  of  Christ,  writes  Professor  See-  its"in- 
ley,  "  has  already  long  outlasted  all  the  states  which  ^^ortality"" 

1  The  principal  objections  are:  (1)  If  Jesus  had  so  charged 
his  apostles,  how  could  they  have  been  so  slow  to  adopt  the  idea 
of  the  gospel's  universal  destination?  (2)  Jesus  elsewhere 
limits  his  mission  to  Israel  (Matt,  9:5;  15:24).  (3)  The 
apostles  actually  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  only  (Acts  2 :  38 : 
8:10;  10:48;  19:5).  They  would  not  have  done  so  if  they 
had  been  taught  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.  Moreover,  this  trinitarian  formula  clearly  sug- 
gests later  ecclesiastical  usage.  I  have  considered  these  points 
in  detail  in  my  Theology  of  the  N.  T.,  pp.  146-148. 


160  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

were  existing  at  the  time  of  its  foundation ;  it  num- 
.bers  far  more  citizens  than  any  of  the  states  which  it 
has  seen- spring  up  near  it.  It  subsists  without  the 
help  of  costly  armaments;  resting  on  no  accidental 
aid  or  physical  support,  but  on  an  inherent  immortal- 
ity, it  defied  the  enmity  of  ancient  civilization,  the 
brutality  of  mediaeval  barbarism,  and  under  the  prev- 
alent universal  empire  of  public  opinion  it  is  so  secure 
that  even  those  parts  of  it  seem  indestructible  which 
deserve  to  die.  .  .  .  The  achievement  of  Christ  in 
founding  by  his  single  will  and  power  a  structure  so 
durable  and  so  universal,  is  like  no  other  achievement 
which  history  records.  .  .  .  The  creative  effort  which 
produced  that  against  which,  it  is  said,  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail,  cannot  be  analyzed.  No  archi- 
tect's designs  were  furnished  for  the  New  Jerusalem ; 
no  committee  drew  up  rules  for  the  Universal  Com- 
monwealth. ...  It  must  be  enough  to  say, '  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  those  that  believed.'  No  man  saw  the 
building  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  the  workmen  crowded 
bogether,  the  unfinished  walls  and  unpaved  streets; 
QO  man  heard  the  clink  of  trowel  and  pickaxe ;  it  de- 
scended out  of  heaven  from  God."  ^ 

1  Ecce  Homo  (8th  ed.),  pp.  305,  306,  309,  310. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   SECOND    COMING^ 

The  problems  connected  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ's 
concerning  his  parousia,  or  second  coming,  are  among  in^cormfc- 
the  most  difficult  which  the  Gospels  present.    In  order  tion  with  the 
that  the  question  to  be  considered  may  be  presented  twei^. 
as  clearly  as  possible,  it  will  be  useful,  first  of  all,  to 
collate  and  compare  the  various  references  to  the  sub- 
ject in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.    After  the  instructions 
which  Jesus  gave  to  the  twelve  when  he  sent  them 
forth  to  teach  and  heal,^  Matthew  introduces  an  ex- 

I tended  general  discourse  upon  the  dangers  and  duties 
of  the  disciples,^  to  which  there  is  no  parallel  in  the ' 
other  Synoptics.  In  the  midst  of  the  passage  occurs* 
this  saying :  "  But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this 
city,  flee  into  the  next :  for  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Ye 
shall  not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  tlie 
Son  of  man  be  come."  * 

1  General  References :  Charles,  A  Critical  History  of  the 
Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life,  etc.,  and  article  ♦' Eschatology,"  in 
the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica;  Salmond,  The  Christian  Doctrine 
of  Immortality,  _Bk.  Ill,  and  article  "  Eschatology,"  in  Hast- 
ings' B.  D.;  W.  A.  Brown,  article  "Parousia,"  in  Hastings' 
B.  D.,  and  the  literature  there  cited;  Schwartzkopff,  The 
Prophecies  of  Jesus  Christ;  H.  Kingman,  "The  Apocalyptic 
Teaching  of  our  Lord,"  in  The  Biblical  World,  March,  1897 ; 
Haupt,  Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu  u.  s.  w.;  Balden- 
sperger.  Das  Selhsthewusstsein  Jesu,  pp.  193-212  ;  Beyschlag, 
N.  T.  Theol.j  Bk.  I,  ch.  viii;  Stevens,  Theol.  of  N.  T,  Pt.  I, 
Ch.  xii.  2  Mk.  6  :  7-11 ;  Matt.  10 : 1-16 ;  Lk.  9  : 1-6. 

»  Matt.  10 :  16-42.  *  Matt.  10  :  23. 

M  161 


162 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Will  occur 
within  the 
lifetime  of 
some  who 
beard  him. 


After  Peter's  confession,  all  the  Synoptists  record  a 
prediction,  by  Jesus,  of  his  death  and  resurrection.* 
He  warns  the  disciples  of  the  severe  tests  to  which 
they  will  be  subjected,  and  exhorts  them  to  gain  their 
lives  by  constancy  and  devotion  in  his  service.  Fol- 
lowing this  instruction  there  is  a  prediction  of  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to  test  the  faithfulness  of 
his  disciples,  to  which  is  coupled  a  declaration  that 
this  event  will  occur  within  the  lifetime  of  some  of 
those  who  heard  him  speak.  The  parallel  passages  are 
as  follows :  — 


Its  relation 
to  Jerusa- 
lem's 
overthrow. 


For  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  his 
angels  ;  and  then  shall  he 
render  unto  every  man 
according  to  his  deeds. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
There  be  some  of  them 
that  stand  here,  which 
shall  in  no  wise  taste  of 
death,  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  his 
kingdom." 


For  whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my 
words  in  this  adulterous 
and  sinful  generation,  the 
Son  of  man  also  shall  be 
ashamed  of  him,  when  he 
Cometh  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father  with  the  holy 
angels.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  There  be  some  here 
of  them  that  stand  by, 
which  shall  in  no  wise 
taste  of  death,  till  they 
see  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power.8 


For  whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my 
words,  of  him  shall  the 
Son  of  man  be  ashamed, 
when  he  cometh  in  his 
own  glory,  and  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
holy  angels.  But  I  tell 
you  of  a  truth.  There  be 
some  of  them  that  stand 
here,  which  shall  in  no 
wise  taste  of  death,  till 
they  see  the  kingdom  of 
God.* 


In  a  long  passage  common,  in  substance,  to  all  the 
Synoptists,  Jesus  predicts  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem^ 
After  the  description  of  this  catastrophe  and  its  vari- 
ous attendant  evils  and  sufferings,  we  find  in  all  the 
Synoptics  a  prediction  of  the  second  coming.  The 
relevant  passages,  in  the  three  sources,  are  as  follows :  — 


But  immediately,  after 
the  tribulation  of  those 
days,  the  sun  shall  be 
darkened,  and  the  moon 
shall  not  give  her  light, 
and  the  stars  shall  fall 
from  heaven,  and  the 
powers  of  the   heavens 


But  in  those  days,  after 
that  tribulation,  the  sun 
shall  be  darkened,  and 
the  moon  shall  not  give 
her  light,  and  the  stars 
shall  be  falling  from  heav- 
en, and  the  powers  that 
are  in  the  heavens  shall 


And  there  shall  be  signs 
in  sun  and  moon  and 
stars  ;  and  upon  the  earth 
distress  of  nations,  in 
perplexity  for  the  roaring 
of  the  sea  and  the  billows  : 
men  fainting  for  fear,  and 
for   expectation    of    the 


1  Mk.  8  :  31-9  : 1 ;  Matt.  16  :  21-28  ;  Lk.  9  :  22-27. 

2  Matt.  16  :  27,  28.  8  Mk.  8  :  38-9 : 1.  *  Lk.  9 :  26,  27. 
6  Mk.  13  : 1-23 ;  Matt.  24  : 1-28  ;  Lk.  21 : 1-24. 


TEE  SECOND  COMING 


163 


shall  be  shaken :  and  then 
shall  appear  the  sign  of 
the  Son  of  man  in  heaven: 
and  then  shall  all  the 
tribes  of  the  earth  mourn, 
and  they  shall  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven  with 
power  and  great  glory. 
And  he  shall  send  forth 
his  angels  with  a  great 
sofind  of  a  trumpet,  and 
they  shall  gather  together 
his  elect  from  the  four 
winds,  from  one  end  of 
heaven  to  the  other.* 


be  shaken.  And  then 
shall  they  see  the  Son  of 
man  coming  in  clouds 
with  great  power  and 
glory.  And  then  shall  he 
send  forth  the  angels,  and 
shall  gather  together  his 
elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  the  uttermost  part 
of  the  earth  to  the  utter- 
most part  of  heaven.* 


things  which  are  coming 
on  the  world:  for  the 
powers  of  the  heavens 
shall  be  shaken.  And 
then  shall  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  a 
cloud  with  power  and 
great  glory.  But  when 
these  things  begin  to 
come  to  pass,  look  up, 
and  lift  up  your  heads ; 
because  your  redemption 
draweth  nigh.' 


The  next  relevant  passage  occurs  in  the  description 
of  Jesus'  trial. -and  is  found  in  all  three  Synoptics- 
After  the  accusations  of  the  multitude  had  been  made 
against  Jesus,  the  high  priest  demanded  what  answer 
he  would  make.  When  he  answered  nothing,  the  high 
priest  put  a  second  question  to  him,  namely,  whether 
he  professed  to  be  the  Christ.  This  question  called 
out  the  saying  which  is  pertinent  to  our  present  in- 
quiry. The  question  and  its  answer  are  presented,  in 
the  three  accounts,  as  follows  :  — 


The  high 
priest  shall 
witness  his 
"coming." 


And  the  high  priest 
said  unto  him,  I  adjure 
thee  by  the  living  God, 
that  thou  tell  us  whether 
thou  be  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God.  Jesus  saith 
onto  him,  Thou  hast  said : 
nevertheless  I  say  unto 
you.  Henceforth  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of 
power,  and  coming  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven.* 


Again  the  high  priest 
asked  him,  and  saith  unto 
him.  Art  thou  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ? 
And  Jesus  said,  I  am  : 
and  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  with  the  clouds 
ofheaven.6 


And  they  led  him  away 
into  their  coucil,  saying, 
If  thou  art  the  Christ, 
tell  us.  But  he  said  unto 
them.  If  I  tell  you,  ye 
will  not  believe:  and  if  I 
ask  you,  ye  will  not 
answer.  But  from  hence- 
forth shall  the  Son  of 
man  be  seated  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  power 
of  God.« 


Other  passages  in  which  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man  is  referred  to  are  found  in  various  connections. 
The  suddenness  of  the  event  is  compared  to  the  descent 
of  the  flood  in  the  days  of  Noah  ^  and  to  the  flashing  of 


Suddenness 
and  near- 
ness of  the 
advent. 


1  Matt.  24 :  29-31.       »  Lk.  21  :  25-28.  »  Mk.  14  :  61,  62. 

a  Mk.  13  :  24-27.         *  Matt.  26 :  63,  64.       e  Lk.  22  :  66-69. 

'  Matt.  24 :  37-39 :  Lk.  17 :  26. 


164  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Application  lightning  across  the  sky}  The  lesson  of  several  of  the 
to  th^e^^^^^  parables  is  enforced  by  an  appeal  to  the  Messiah's  corn- 
subject.  '  ing  to  judgment.  For  example,  the  intervention  of  God 
on  behalf  of  his  people  which  is  taught  in  the  parable 
of  the  Unjust  Judge,  is  conceived  as  taking  place  at 
Messiah's  coming :  "  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  will  avenge 
them  speedily.  Howbeit  when  the  Son  of  man  Com- 
eth, shall  he  find  faith  on  the  earth  ?  "  ^  Matthew  ap- 
pears to  have  regarded  the  parable  of  the  Talents,* 
which  pictures  an  absent  lord  as  returning  to  his  ser- 
vants, as  having  reference  to  Messiah's  return  to  judg- 
ment.* The  parable  is  immediately  followed  by  the 
picture  of  the  judgment  scene,  which  is  introduced  by 
the  words :  "  But  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him,"  etc.*  In  Luke 
also,  where  the  figure  of  a  landlord's  return  home  is 
employed,  we  find  the  same  application  of  the  idea  to 
the  parousia.^  The  duties  of  faithfulness  and  watch- 
fulness are  enforced  by  appeal  to  the  liability  of  Mes- 
siah's coming,  most  unexpectedly,  to  judgment :  "  Be 
ye  also  ready :  for  in  an  hour  that  ye  think  not  the 
Son  of  man  cometh."  ^ 
Summary  of  The  principal  facts,  then,  which  the  Synoptic 
the  facts.  Gospels  present  for  our  consideration  are  these: 
(1)  According  to  Matthew,  Jesus  predicted  his  "  com- 
ing "  before  the  disciples  had  accomplished  their  tour 
among  the  cities  of  Israel.^  (2)  According  to  all  the 
Synoptists,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his  glory, 
or  in  his  kingdom,  should  take  place  while  some  of 
those  to  whom  he  spoke  were  still  living.^     (3)  His 

1  Lk.  17  :  24.  2  Lk.  18:8.  »  Matt.  25  :  14-30. 

*  This  application  is  less  clearly  made  by  Luke  in  the  similar 
—  and,  originally,  probably  identical  —  parable  of  the  Pounds 
(19 :  11-27).  6  Matt.  25 :  31.  «  Lk.  12  ;  35-38. 

'  Lk.  12  :  40  ;  Matt.  24  :  44.  8  Matt.  10  :  23. 

»  Matt.  16 :  27,  28 ;  Mk.  8  :  38-9  : 1  ;  Lk.  9  :  26,  27. 


THE  SECOND  COMING  165 

coming  in  clouds  with  power  and  glory  was  to  follow 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  according  to  Matthew, 
"  immediately."  ^  (4)  The  high  priest  was  told  that 
from  the  very  time  of  speaking  ^  he  should  see  Christ 
coming  with  or  on  the  clouds  of  heaven.^  (5)  In  all 
cases  where  the  idea  of  a  lord  in  relation  to  his  ser- 
vants, especially  of  the  lord's  return,  is  found,  it  is 
applied  by  the  Synoptists  to  the  Messiah's  parousia. 
The  general  result  is,  that  Jesus  is  described  as  pre-  The  general 
dieting  his  coming  in  the  near  future  during  his  own  '^^ult. 
generation,*  or  even  more  definitely,  while  his  disciples 
were  traversing  Israel  on  their  mission,  directly  after 
Jerusalem's  downfall,  or  soon  after  his  trial. 

The  facts  which  we  have  reviewed  give  rise  to  such  Questions 
questions  as  these:  (1)  Can  these  representations  be  answer"^ 
harmonized  with  one  another?  (2)  Can  the  general 
teaching  which  is  deduced  from  them  be  harmonized 
with  the  facts  of  history  ?  (3)  If  not,  are  we  to  attribute 
the  misconception  respecting  the  time  and  accompani- 
ments of  the  second  advent  to  those  who  preserved  the 
tradition  of  his  words,  including  the  Synoptists,  or  to 
Jesus  himself  ? 

The  following  opinions  are  possible,  and  common.  Various 
with  respect  to  the  subject :  —  solutions. 

(1)  Jesus  expected  his  visible  coming  in  his  king-   (i)  Jesusdid 
dom  to  occur  soon.     Being  limited  in  knowledge,  he  t^^^H^i^ 
was  liable  to  such  a  mistake.      He   entertained  the  soon, 
apocalyptic  conception  of  the  kingdom's  sudden  and 
supernatural  establishment  which  was  well-nigh  uni- 
versal in  his  age,  and  which  held  its  ground  in  the 

1  Matt.  24 :  30 ;  Mk.  13 :  26  ;  Lk.  21 :  27. 

2  Matthew's  phrase  is  &ir'   Apn^   "from  this  very  time"; 
Luke's,  dvb  Tov  vvv,  "  from  now." 

8  Matt.  26:64;  Mk.  14:62. 

*  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall  not  pass 
away,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished  "  (Matt.  24  :  34). 


166 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


(2)  His 
disciples 
misappre- 
hended his 
references to 
his  coming. 


(3)  The 
coming 
spiritual  or 
continuous. 


early  Church  throughout  the  apostolic  period.  The 
key-note  of  the  whole  New  Testament  is :  "  The  Lord 
is  at  hand."  The  evangelists  have  correctly  reported 
him  as  teaching  that  his  glorious  coming  on  the  clouds, 
attended  by  hosts  of  angels,  would  occur  speedily. 
This  was  the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  Messiah's  mani- 
festation and  victory,  and  the  Gospels  repeatedly  assure 
us  that  Jesus  also  shared  it.^ 

(2)  The  minds  of  the  people  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
were  preoccupied  with  a  certain  conception  of  the 
Messiah's  appearance.  They  thought  that  his  coming 
would  be  attended  by  striking  physical  phenomena 
and  by  startling  exhibitions  of  supernatural  power. 
Now  Jesus  fulfilled  none  of  these  expectations,  but 
when  he  spoke  of  great  coming  crises  or  triumphs  of 
his  kingdom,  he  was  understood  to  be  promising  the 
fulfilment  of  the  common  apocalyptic  hopes  of  the 
people.  Hence  he  was,  in  a  great  measure,  misunder- 
stood, and  this  misunderstanding  perpetuated  itself  in 
the  tradition  of  his  words  and  is  reflected  in  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels.  On  this  view  it  is  held  to  be  unlikely 
that  Jesus  foretold  his  personal  visible  return  to  earth 
within  the  generation  then  living,  as  the  Synoptists 
represent  him  as  doing.  Sayings  of  his  which  origi- 
nally had  no  such  reference  were,  however,  so  under- 
stood, and  all  the  prepossessions  of  the  people  of  the 
time  favored  the  development  of  this  understanding 
of  his  words.  This  is  attested  by  the  widespread 
prevalence  of  the  idea  of  a  speedy  apocalyptic  coming 
of  Christ  in  the  apostolic  age.^ 

(3)  Many  interpreters  have  sought  an  explanation 
of  the  facts  by  understanding  the  "coming"  of  Christ 
in  a  spiritual  sense,  or  as  a  continuous  process,  or  by 

1  So,  e.g.,  Keira,  Weiss,  Iloltzmann,  "Wendt,  Baldensperger, 
Charles,  McGiffert. 

2  So,  e.g.,  Neander,  Beyschlag,  Fisher,  Horton. 


THE  SECOND  COMING  167 

conceiving  of  various  "comings"  of  Christ  —  events 
or  crises  in  the  progress  of  his  kingdom.  The  refer- 
ences to  physical  phenomena  which  should  accompany 
his  coming  or  comings  are  understood  as  pictorial  or 
figurative.  The  Son  of  man  did  come  in  some  event 
or  experience  which  marked  a  step  in  the  progress  of 
his  kingdom,  w^hile  the  disciples  were  canvassing  the 
cities  of  Israel.^  The  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  king- 
dom is  an  expression  for  the  coming  of  God's  kingdom 
with  power.2  There  were  many  of  the  people  to  whom  • 
he  spoke  who  saw  him  come  thus  in  his  kingdom. 
He  did  come  in  a  peculiar  manner,  it  is  said,  in  and 
directly  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  That 
event  marked  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  state  and 
the  cessation  of  the  Jewish  national  worship.  It 
opened  the  way  to  a  great  onward  movement  of  the 
gospel.  In  connection  with  it  Christ  came  in  his 
kingdom.  Especially  did  he  come  in  triumph  from 
that  very  hour  of  apparent  defeat  when  he  stood 
accused  and  condemned  before  the  Jewish  high  priest. 
By  his  cross  he  conquered.  When  lifted  up  on  the 
cross  he  drew  men  to  him  as  never  before.  From  this 
hour,  when  men  condemned  him  to  die,  he  came  to  the 
world  in  new  power  and  glory,  the  glory  of  love  and 
self-denying  suffering.^ 

Almost  all  efforts  to  solve  the  problem  whose  ele-  Unwar- 
ments  we  have  reviewed   are  forms  of  these  three  gofuSonsor 
theories,  or  are  built  up  by  some  combination  of  them,  combina- 
Some,  indeed,  try  to  combine  quite  incompatible  ele-  *'^"^" 
ments  in  the  theories  just  described.     For  example, 
some  interpreters  seek  to  show  that  while  the  coming 
of  Christ  is  to  be  understood  as  an  apocalyptic,  eschato- 
logical  event,  it  is  not  really  affirmed  that  the  event 

1  Matt.  10  :  23.  2  Cf.  Matt.  16  :  28  and  Mk.  9  : 1. 

'  This  view,  with  variations,  is  found  in  Schliermacher,  Hase, 
Bleek,  and  Meyer. 


168 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


"The 

perspective 
of 
prophecy." 


A  supposed 

Jewish 

apocalypse. 


The 

alternative 

presented. 


would  happen  during  the  lifetime  of  persons  then 
living,  or  directly  after  Jerusalem's  overthrow.  This 
conclusion  is  justified  by  making  "generation"  mean 
"  race  "  :  "  This  race  (of  mankind  or  of  Christians),  or 
nation  (of  Jews)  shall  not  pass  away,  till  all  these 
things  be  accomplished,"^  —  and  by  transforming 
"  immediately  "  ^  into  "  suddenly."  These  interpreta- 
tions are  mere  makeshifts.  They  cut  the  knot,  in- 
stead of  untying  it. 

Some  interpreters  have  sought  to  resolve  the  diffi- 
culty involved  in  Jesus'  prediction  of  his  coming  in 
the  near  future  by  a  theory  of  "  the  perspective  of 
prophecy "  —  the  idea  that  in  prophetic  pictures 
events  near  and  distant  are  so  massed  together  that 
the  latter  appear  as  if  near.^  Many  recent  scholars 
explain  the  incongruities  in  the  great  eschatological 
discourse  by  supposing  that  it  is  a  composite  of  genu- 
ine sayings  of  Jesus  with  a  Christian  adaptation  of  a 
short  Jewish  apocalypse.^ 

In  view  of  the  facts  which  have  been  adduced,  we 
are  confronted,  in  respect  to  this  perplexing  subject, 
with  the  following  question  and  alternative :  Did 
Jesus  really  predict  that  his  second  advent  would 
occur  within  the  generation  then  living?  All  the 
Synoptists  repeatedly  represent  him  as  so  doing. 
Assuming  the  correctness  of  their  reports,  the  alter- 

1  Matt.  24  :  34.  2  Matt.  24  :  29.  «  So  Bengel. 

*  According  to  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  9-21,  this  apocalypse 
includes,  in  Mk.  1-3,  vv.  7,  8,  14-20,  24-27,  30,  31.  According 
to  Professor  Charles,  Critical  History,  etc.  (alternative  title, 
Eschatology,  Hebrew,  Jewish,  and  Christian),  p.  329,  the  apoca- 
lypse includes,  of  Matthew's  version  (ch.  xxiv),  the  following 
verses,  6-8,  15-22,  29-31,  34,  35.  This  theory  of  the  structure 
of  the  eschatological  discourse  is  held  by  Weiffenbach,  Weiz- 
sacker,  Holtzmann,  Bousset.  I  have  summarized  the  argument 
for  this  division  of  the  material  in  my  Theol.  of  the  iV.  T., 
pp.  156,  157. 


THE  SECOND  COMING  169 

native  is:  Either  he  predicted  in  the  most  positive 
and  definite  terms  what  did  not  happen,  or  it  must 
be  shown  that  his  "  coming  "  (in  glory,  on  the  clouds, 
in  his  kingdom,  etc.)  can  refer  to  some  event  which 
did  happen,  or  to  some  process  which  began  to  be 
accomplished  within  the  time  specified  in  the 
prophecies. 

I  cannot  adopt  the  view  that  Jesus  predicted  his  Jesus  did 
personal,  visible   coming   to  judgment  <as  certain  to  SJ^g*  personal 
occur  in  the  near  future,  because  (1)  the  supposition  coming  in 
is  derogatory  to  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Founder  future^"^ 
of  the  kingdom ;  (2)   because  such  a  prediction  would 
be  incongruous  with  his  teaching  concerning  the  nature 
and  coming  of  his  kingdom.     His  doctrine  of  the  king- 
dom as  a  whole,  as  expressed  in  his  parables,  for  ex- 
ample, does  not  accord  with  the  idea  of  an  apocalyptic 
coming  in  outward  power  and  glory  which  the  Synop- 
tic tradition  ascribes  to  Jesus.     (3)   So  definite  a  pre- 
diction as  that  he  would  come,  in  the  sense  referred 
to,  while  the  disciples  were  traversing  the  cities  of 
Israel,  or  directly  after  Jerusalem's  fall,  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  express  declaration  that  he  did  not  know 
the  time  of  his  coming.^     It  is  scarcely  a  fair  reply  to 
say  that  he  declared  that  he  would  come  within  the 
next  few  years,  though  he  did  not  know  on  what  day 
or  at  what  hour. 

Can  we,  then,  adopt  the  view  that  the   "coming"  Do  the 
predicted  was  not  the  outward  event  which  appears  then^mean 
to  be  described,  but  was  some  crisis  in  the  progress  of  something 
Christ's  kingdom  which  did  occur  while  some  of  those  ^«  coming '% 
who  heard  Jesus  were  still  living  ?     This  supposition 
Jnvolves  great  exegetical  difficulties,  if  we  take  the 
language  of  the  Synoptics  as  it  stands.     The  coming'' 
is  to  be  "in  the  glory  of  the  Father  with  the  holy 
angels."  *    He  will  come  "  on  the  clouds  with  great 

1  Mk.  13 :  32 ;  Matt.  24 :  36.  «  Mk.  8 :  38. 


170 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Did  Jesus 
always 
mean  the 
same  thing 
by  his 
"coming  "? 


Special 
tendency  in 
Matthew. 


power  and  glory."  ^  He  will  see,  when  he  returns, 
whether  he  will  find  his  professed  disciples  faithful 
to  him.^  It  is  very  difficult  to  suppose  that  those  who 
wrote  down  such  descriptions  of  Christ's  coming  un- 
derstood by  them  a  spiritual  event  or  process,  or  any- 
thing else  than  what  the  early  Church  believed  in,  a 
visible  return  of  Christ  to  earth.^  In  my  opinion  this 
is  what  the  language  meant  for  those  who  preserved 
the  tradition,  including  the  Synoptists.  If  such  lan- 
guage can  have  been  meant  in  a  spiritual  sense,  we 
may  well  despair  of  a  scientific  exegesis.  In  this 
view  the  great  majority  of  scholars  agree. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  fair  question  whether 
Jesus  himself  could  have  meant  the  same  thing  by 
the  various  "comings"  of  which  he  is  described  as 
speaking.  What  appropriateness  would  there  be  in 
his  declaring  that  his  second  advent  to  judgment  would 
occur  while  the  disciples  were  still  absent  on  their 
mission  of  preaching  and  healing  ?  *  And  how  could 
that  "coming"  be  the  same  as  that  which  should 
directly  follow  Jerusalem's  overthrow  ?  *  Again,  in 
Luke,  it  is  said  that  some  of  those  present  should  "  see 
the  kingdom  of  God";®  in  Mark  it  is  said  that  they 
should  "  see  the  kingdom  of  God  come  vntli  power, ^^  ^ 
while  in  Matthew  the  parallel  phrase  is,  "till  they 
see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom. "  ^  It  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  these  expressions  origi- 
nally meant  the  same.  The  parallelism  indeed  sug- 
gests that  the  generic  "coming  of  the  kingdom"  in 
Luke  has  become  the  specific  "  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man"  in  Matthew.  We  now  discover  that  Matthew 
shows  a  special  tendency  to  dwell  on  the  visible  coming 

iMk.  13:26.  ^Lk.  18:8. 

«  Cf.  Acts  1 :  11 ;  1  Thess.  4 :  15,  16.  e  Lk.  9 :  27. 

4  Matt.  10:33.  7Mk.  9:1. 

6  Matt.  24 :  29.  8  Matt.  16 :  28. 


THE  SECOND  COMING  171 

of  the  Son  of  man  in  glory,  and  to  make  the  time  of 
it  perfectly  definite.  We  have  seen  that  he  alone  re- 
cords the  saying  that  Christ  should  come  during  the 
tour  of  the  twelve.^  He  only  makes  Jesus  say  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  that  while  some  of  his  hearers  were 
still  living  he  would  come  in  his  kingdom.^  It  is  Mat- 
thew only  who  makes  Jesus  state  that  he  would  come 
on  the  clouds  immediately  after  Jerusalem's  over- 
throw.^ There  is  thus  some  evidence  of  a  tendency 
on  the  part  of  the  first  evangelist  to  transform  general 
statements,  which  might  not  have  referred  to  a  visible 
second  coming,  into  a  form  which  could  have  no  other 
meaning.  May  not  all  the  Synoptists  have  shared 
this  tendency  to  some  extent  ? 

There  are  other  facts  which  look  in  the  same  direc-  other 
tion.     How  could  Jesus  have  meant  that,  from  the  very  reasons  for 

-         -  1  •  1      -I  •    1         •  111    supposing 

moment  when  he  was  speaking,  the  high  priest  should  various 
see  him  coming  back  to  earth  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  ?  'comings 
Yet  that  is  what  the  words  (in  Matthew*  and  Mark ^) 
now  say.  In  Luke,  however,  we  observe  that  they  are 
much  more  general :  "  From  henceforth  shall  the  Son 
of  man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of 
God."  "  We  can  easily  imagine  the  process  by  which 
such  general  expressions  of  Christ's  triumph  in  his 
kingdom  were  transformed,  under  the  power  of  the 
popular  expectations  of  Messiah's  glorious  manifesta- 
tion, into  definite  predictions  of  his  outward  advent. 
The  fact  that  several  of  Jesus'  parables  whose  matter 
and  teaching  do  not  favor  such  application,  are  made 
to  refer  to  Christ's  coming,  illustrates  the  tendency 
in  question.^  Wherever  the  notion  of  the  return  of  a 
master  to  his  servants  or  possessions  occurs,  it  is  alle- 
gorized into  a  reference  to  the  parousia. 

1  Matt.  10  :  23.  «  Matt.  24 :  29.  6  Mk.  14 :  62. 

2  Matt.  16 :  28.  *  Matt.  26 :  64.  «  Lk.  22 :  69. 

'  Lk.  12 :  36-48 ;  18 : 1-8 ;  Matt.  26 :  14-29. 


172 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


Conclusion : 

twofold 

conception 

of  the 

kingdom 

and  its 

coming. 


A  choice  of 
two  views. 


The  verdict 
of  criticism. 


The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  forced  is  that  there 
are  two  widely  different  conceptions  of  the  kingdom 
and  its  coming  embodied  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels: 
(1)  the  conception  of  a  spiritual  kingdom,  coming 
gradually,  as  leaven  spreads  in  meal,^  or  as  seed  springs 
up  and  grows,^  a  kingdom  whose  coming  is  "without 
observation,"  ^  and  whose  progress  is  to  be  a  great  his- 
torical world-process ;  ^  (2)  the  popular  Jewish  apoca- 
lyptic conception  of  a  kingdom  to  be  inaugurated 
suddenly  with  startling  displays  of  divine  power  — 
the  kingdom  of  the  Danielle  vision  ^  in  which  the  Son 
of  man  shall  be  manifested  in  splendor  and  power. 
We  know  that  this  was  the  current  popular  concep- 
tion.* Was  it  also  that  of  Jesus?  How  could  he  have 
held  these  two  incompatible  conceptions  of  the  king- 
dom, to  say  nothing  of  the  failure  of  the  latter  to  be 
realized  ? 

We  must  take  our  choice  between  these  two  views  : 
(1)  that  Jesus  was  in  error  and  held  two  incompatible 
views  of  his  kingdom ;  and  (2)  that  the  current  popu- 
lar Messianic  ideas  have  been  blended,  in  our  Synoptic 
accounts,  with  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  words,  and  have 
given  to  his  sayings  about  his  kingdom  and  its  victory 
an  outward  and  apocalyptic  form  which  did  not  origi- 
nally belong  to  them.  This  alternative  is  not  the 
product  of  a  priori  considerations,  but  is  forced  upon 
us  by  the  phenomena  presented  in  the  Gospels  them- 
selves. There  is  no  escape  from  it  except  by  resort  to 
exegetical  violence. 

Exegesis  can  only  find  in  the  Synoptists  a  twofold 
doctrine  of  the  kingdom  and  predictions  of  an  apocar 
lyptic  coming  of  Christ  which  did  not  happen.     It  can 


1  Matt.  13:33.         *  Matt.  21:43. 

2  Mk.  4  :  28.  ^  Dan.  7 :  13, 14. 

8  Lk.  17  :  20.  «  See,  e.g.,  Lk.  19  :  11 ;  24  :  21 ;  Acts  1 :  G. 


THE  SECOND  COMING 


173 


then  merely  offer  a  choice  between  attributing  the 
error  involved  to  Jesus,  or  to  those  who  heard  him  and 
who  had  to  do  with  the  preservation  of  his  words. 
Historical  criticism  alone  brings  any  relief  from  this 
dilemma.  This  it  does  by  showing,  from  the  Gospels 
themselves,  that  there  is  a  doctrine  of  the  kingdom 
which  is  more  accordant  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
as  a  whole  than  is  the  apocalyptic  doctrine ;  that  the 
popular  expectations  would  inevitably  powerfully  color 
and  shape  any  prophecies  which  he  might  have  spoken 
about  his  future  success  or  the  triumph  of  his  cause, 
and  that  we  can  see  the  clearest  traces  of  such  a  pro- 
cess of  modification  on  the  pages  of  the  Synoptics 
themselves,  especially  in  the  case  of  Matthew. 

My  conclusion,  then,  is  a  combination  of  the  second  A  combina- 
and  third  general  views  sketched  in  the  earlier  part  theories.^^ 
of  this  chapter,^  namely :  (1)  Jesus  actually  spoke  of 
various  "  comings "  of  his  kingdom  or  of  the  Son 
of  man  in  his  kingdom — various  "days  of  the  Son  of 
man  "  ^  —  epochs  in  the  progressive  development  of 
his  kingdom ;  but  (2)  all  these  sayings  were  popularly 
understood,  or  came  to  be  more  and  more  understood, 
in  an  eschatological,  apocalyptic  sense  as  describing 
a  visible  personal  return  to  earth  on  the  clouds,  and 
this  conception  of  the  subject  was  naturally  embodied 
in  our  Synoptic  tradition,  although  traces  of  the  origi- 
nal meaning  of  Jesus  are  by  no  means  wanting. 

Let  us  briefly  apply  these  principles  to  the  relevant  The 
passages.  Though  the  terms  in  which  the  "coming" 
of  Christ  spoken  of  in  the  isolated  passage,  Matt. 
10:23,  and  in  the  saying  addressed  to  the  high  priest,* 
are  substantially  the  same  as  those  which'  elsewhere 
most  explicitly  describe  Jesus'  visible  return  to  earth,* 

1  pp.  166,  167.  2  Lk.  17  :  22. 

8  Matt.  26  :  63,  64  ;  Mk.  14  :  61,  62. 
*E.g.  Mk.  13:26. 


conclusion 
tested. 


174 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


yet  their  original  intention  cannot  reasonably  be  so 
understood.  How,  for  instance,  could  the  high  priest 
from  that  moment  when  Jesus  addressed  him  witness 
Christ's  visible  advent,  especially  if,  as  another  pas- 
sage states,  it  was  to  occur  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  The  "coming"  there  described  must  have 
been,  not  Christ's  personal  coming  in  clouds,  but  some 
coming  of  his  kingdom  (as  Luke  has  it).  The  mean- 
ing probably  is :  From  this  very  time  when  I  stand 
before  you  condemned  and  apparently  defeated,  my 
triumph  will  begin.  Through  humiliation  and  death 
I  will  go  to  my  glory  and  my  crown.  Even  the  great 
eschatological  discourse,  by  connecting  Christ's  "  com- 
ing "  so  definitely  with  Jerusalem's  fall  (especially  in 
Matthew's  version  of  it),  suggests  the  question  whether 
the  original  meaning  of  Jesus  had  not  been  that  the 
downfall  of  the  Jewish  state  and  religious  system 
would  be  followed  by  a  signal  forward  movement  of 
his  cause.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  apparently 
allegorical  application  of  the  parables  about  a  lord  re- 
turning. The  modern  study  of  the  apocalyptic  litera- 
ture and  ideas  of  Jesus'  age  has  furnished  us  almost 
a  demonstration  of  the  fact  that  the  people  of  his 
time  could  conceive  of  but  one  coming  of  the  Messiah 
and  that  a  glorious  visible  manifestation.^  The  Gos- 
pels, when  read  with  historical  insight,  confirm  this 
evidence,  and  furnish  us  hints  and  traces  of  another 
and  higher  view,  namely,  that  of  Jesus  himself,  under- 
lying the  popular  beliefs  and  expectations  by  which 
his  teaching  had  been  overlaid. 

This  conclusion  is  strikingly  confirmed  by  the 
fourth  Gospel.^    These  various  "  comings  "  of  Christ 

1  See  Charles,  Eschatology,  ch.  ix. 

*  The  evidence  can  only  be  summarized  here.  I  have  pre- 
sented it  in  greater  detail  in  my  Theol.  of  the  iV.  T.,  Tart  II, 
ch.  vii. 


TEE  SECOND  COMING  175 

are  recognized,  but  the  subject  is  never  presented  in 
an  apocalyptic  manner.  Indeed,  the  parousia  of  Christ, 
in  the  sense  which  it  bears  in  the  Synoptists  and  in 
Paul,  occupies  a  very  subordinate  place  in  the  Gospel 
of  John,  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,"  ^  is 
probably  an  allusion  to  it.  The  words,  "And  if  I 
go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come  again  and 
will  receive  you  unto  myself,"^  are  understood  by 
many  in  an  eschatological  sense.  But  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  practical  religious  use  which 
is  commonly  made  of  this  passage,  which  regards  it 
as  referring  to  Christ's  coming  at  death  to  believers, 
is  not  nearer  to  its  original  import.  In  most  instances 
Christ's  "  coming,"  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  is, 
clearly  spiritual,  for  example :  "  I  will  not  leave  you 
desolate :  I  come  to  you ;  "  ^  a  j  gQ  away,  and  I  come 
again  to  you."*  The  context  makes  it  quite  clear  that 
this  coming  is  his  coming  in  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  In 
like  manner  that  future  sight  of  Jesus  which  the  dis- 
ciples are  to  experience*  appears  to  be  a  spiritual 
seeing. 

We  may,  therefore,  say,  in  general,  that  the  place  Combina-    ' 
which  in  the  Synoptics  is  occupied  by  the  great  escha-  sy^opUc*^ 
tological  discourse,  is  taken,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  by  and 
the  prophecies  concerning  Christ's  coming  to  his  dis-  repfe"enta- 
ciples  in  the  Spirit.    If  we  are  to  regard  the  Johannine  tions. 
presentation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  even  approxi- 
mately adequate,  we  must  admit  that  the  almost  entire 
absence  from  it  of  apocalyptic  elements  and  the  appli- 
cation of  the  notion  of  Christ's  "  coming  "  to  spiritual 
events,  furnishes  good  reason  for  thinking  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  conceived  of  the  coming  and  triumph  ' 
of  his  kingdom  after  the  manner  of  popular  Jewish 
expectation.     I  find  strong  confirmation  of  this  con-_ 

1  Jn.  21 :  22.  «  Jn.  14 :  18.  ^  Jq.  iq  .  le,  22. 

ajn.  14:3.  *Jn.  16:7. 


176  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

elusion  in  the  general  view  of  the  kingdom  which  is] 
presented,  apart  from  references  to  the  "coming,"  in 
the  Synoptics  themselves.  I  therefore  conclude  that' 
the  representation  that  Jesus  would  return  to  earth 
on  the  clouds  of  heaven  during  the  generation  then 
living,  was  due  to  misapprehension  and  confusion  on 
the  part  of  the  disciples.^ 

iThe  same  conclusion  is  reached  by  Dr.  Horton.  "Tradi- 
tion," he  says,  "  has  not  accurately  recorded  Jesus'  specific  fore- 
casts of  the  final  judgment.  There  was  an  initial  confusion 
between  certain  things  he  had  said  concerning  the  downfall  of 
the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  certain  descriptions  he  had  given 
of  the  Last  Day,  and  the  return  of  the  Son  of  man  as  the  Judge 
of  mankind."  —  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  143.  Cf.  S.  Davidson, 
Introduction,  I,  402,  403. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE   RESUKKECTION   AND   JUDGMENT^ 

Little  is  explicitly  said  in  the  Synoptic  teaching  Synoptic 
of  Jesus  concerning  the  resurrection.     There  is  but  concernmg 
one  passage  in  which  the  subject  is  specially  consid-  resurrec- 
ered.^     The  Sadducees  denied  the  doctrine  of  resur-    ^^^' 
rection,  and,  with  a  view  to  exhibiting  the  absurdity 
of  it,  put  to  Jesus  this  question :  If  a  woman  should 
be  successively  married  to  seven  brothers,  to  which  of 
the  seven  would  she  belong  in  the  resurrection  ?    In 
reply  Jesus  pointed  out  two  mistaken  assumptions 
which   were  contained   in   their  argument :    (1)   the 
error  of  supposing  that,  in  the  spirit  world,  such  re- 
lations as  those  of  marriage  were  maintained ;  and  (2) 
their  failure  to  recognize  the  power  of  God  to  pro- 
vide for  men  a  mode  of  life  suited  to  the  condition  of 
the  world  beyond.      He  then  positively  refuted  their 
supposed  reductio  ad  absurdum  by  reference  to  their 
own   sacred    Scriptures,   the  Pentateuch,    reminding 
them  that  God  is  there  described  as  the  God  of  the 
patriarchs,  whose  existence  is  thereby  assumed.     "  He 
is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living,"  ^  said 

1  General  References :  In  addition  to  the  literature  cited  at 
the  beginning  of  the  last  chapter,  see  Salmond,  The  Chris- 
tian Doctrine  of  Immortality,  Bk.  Ill,  chs.  iii  and  iv ;  Forrest, 
The  Christ  of  History  and  of  Experience,  Lect.  IX  ;  Cone,  The 
Gospel  and  its  Earliest  Interpretations,  118-137;  Stalker,  The 
Christology  of  Jesus,  ch.  vii ;  Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus, 
ch.  vii. 

2  Matt.  22  :  23-33 ;  Mk.  12 :  18-27  ;  Lk.  20 :  27-40. 
»  Mk.  12  :  27. 

177 


178 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


Implications 
of  this 
teaching. 


Relation  to 

Jewish 

thought. 


Are  all  men 
to  be  raised  ? 


Jesus ;  your  Scriptures  assume  that  the  patriarchs 
still  live ;  you  neither  understand  these  Scriptures, 
nor  know  the  power  of  God. 

This  teaching  involves  the  unequivocal  assertion  of 
a  future  life,  but  makes  no  explanation  concerning  the 
caode  or  condition  of  it.     There  shall  be  a  blessed  life 

1'for  those  who  are  "  accounted  worthy  to  attain  to  that] 
world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  being  "  sons  I 

[of  God,  sons  of  the  resurrection."^  In  that  life  the] 
good  deeds  of  men  shall  be  recompensed.^  But  these 
general  expressions  leave  many  questions  unanswered. 
Under  what  forms  of  thought  Jesus  clothed  his  idea 
of  resurrection  we  do  not  know.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
however,  that  he  predicates  resurrection  of  persons, 
rather  than  of  bodies,  and  that  resurrection  is  said  to 
be  "  from  among  the  dead."  ^  These  expressions  sug- 
gest the  idea  that  the  person  rises  from  the  realm  or 
state  of  death  into  a  realm  or  state  of  life  and  hap- 

jpiness.  The  form  of  the  thought  seems  to  be  deter-j 
mined  by  the  current  idea  of  Sheol  as  the  abode  of  the 
dead,  from  which  the  person  ascends  into  a  sphere  of 
blessedness.  The  allusions  of  Jesus  to  the  subject 
accord  with  these  current  Jewish  conceptions.  It  is 
noticeable,  however,  that  he  never  dwells  upon  the  in- 
cidents of  this  common  view  as  if  they  were  in  any 
way  essential  to  his  own  thought,  but  lays  stress  only 
upon  the  generic  truth  that  the  forces  of  life  will  tri- 
umph over  death,  that  man  is  destined  to  live  beyond 
the  grave,  that  he  will  not  sink  in  oblivion  and  noth- 
ingness, but  rise  to  renew  and  perpetuate  the  life  which 
God  gave  him  here  on  earth. 

ft  is  a  disputed  point  whether  Jesus  considered  all 
men,  or  only  the  just,  to  be  subjects  of  the  resurrec- 


iLk.  20:35,36. 

*  iK  tCjv  veKpGjv. 


2  Lk.  14 :  14. 


THE  BESUBBECTION  AND  JUDGMENT     179 

tion.  It  was  a  mooted  question  in  Jewish  theology.^ 
All  answers  to  the  question  must  be  inferential.  Cer- 
tainly resurrection  could  not  have  the  same  meaning 
for  good  and  for  evil  men.  Hence  the  "  worthy  "  were 
distinguished  as  "sons  of  the  resurrection."^  And 
yet,  he  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  "  the  dead  "  ^  in  gen- 
eral, and  of  "  the  resurrection  of  the  just,"  ^  —  a  phrase 
which  may  fairly  be  held  to  imply  a  resurrection,  also, 
of  the  unjust.  This  inference  is  explicitly  affirmed 
in  the  Johannine  tradition.^  If  the  generic  idea  of 
resurrection  is  the  survival  of  death,  or,  in  Jewish 
phraseology,  escape  from  Sheol,  it  does  not  appear, 
from  the  principles  of  Jesus,  why  it  should  not  hold 
true  of  all  men,  although  the  accompaniments  and 
conditions  of  resurrection  would  necessarily  differ. 
So  far  as  we  can  judge,  however,  Jesus  used  the  idea 
of  resurrection,  as  did  Paul,  almost  wholly  as  a  means 
of  encouragement  and  of  comfort ;  that  is,  he  set  it  in 
relation  to  the  hope  of  man  for  a  blessed  life  in  the 
world  beyond. 

In  the  Johannine  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  the  Johannine 
resurrection  is  viewed  comprehensively  as  the  triumph  of  "esurrec- 
of  life  over  death.   It  is  contemplated,  now  as  a  present,  tion. 
now  as  a  future,  fact.     Resurrection  is  a  part  of  the 
ift  of  eternal  life,  and  eternal  life  is  a  present  posses- 
Ton  of  the  believer.     "  He  that  heareth  my  word,  anJ 
^elieveth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life.     Verily, 
fverily  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
jwhen  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God : 
gnd  they  that  hear  shall  live."*  We  may  either  regard 
this   present  resurrection   as  an    ethical  quickening, 
the  rising  with  Christ  into  newness  of  life  which  Paul 
describes,  or  as  so  securely  guaranteed  to  the  believer 

1  See  Charles,  Eschatology,  302  sq. ,  for  summary. 

2  Lk.  20 :  36.  *  Lk.  14  :  14.  e  jn.  5 :  24,  26. 
»  Mk.  12 :  26.                  6  jn.  6 :  29. 


180 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


The  "day" 
of  resurrec- 
tion and 
judgment 
in  John. 


that  it  may  be  spoken  of,  by  anticipation,  as  already 
his.  Perhaps  these  two  ideas  may  be  combined.  Th^ 
believer  has  already  entered  on  the  eternal  life,  and 
already  experiences  the  operation  of  its  laws  and  pro-j 
cesses.  This  life  completely  transcends  the  relations! 
of  time.  He  is  already  victor  over  death,  and  whatever^ 
experiences  or  changes  may  await  him,  either  here  or; 
hereafter,  will  only  be  a  part  of  the  process  of  his  tri-; 
'umph  over  death  and  all  hindering  evils.  He  belongs' 
ito  life,  and  in  the  power  of  that  divine  life  hei 
'.conquers. 

The  eschatological  language  concerning  a  future 
"  day  "  of  resurrection  and  judgment  is  also  found  in 
the  fourth  Gospel.  "  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day ;  "  ^  "  for  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are  in 
the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ; 
they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
life ;  and  they  that  have  done  ill,  unto  the  resurrec- 
tion of  judgment."  ^  But  this  language  does  not 
exclude  the  more  comprehensive  conception  of  resur- 
rection as  a  present  fact,  and  hence  as  a  great  process  in 
which  the  possessor  of  eternal  life  progressively  par- 
takes. "  I  know,"  said  Martha,  "  that  he  [Lazarus] 
shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day."^ 
fJesus'  reply  was  :  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life  ^ 
he  that  believeth  on  me,  though  he  die,  yet  shall  hel 
jlive  :  and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  on  me  shall; 
[never  die."  *  Jesus  is  the  giver  of  life,  here  and  now 
— the  power  of  a  present  resurrection;  the  believer 
already  triumphs  over  death;  even  in  death  he  lives; 
yes,  for  him  there  is  no  death.  That  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  future  resurrection  —  some  crisis  of  deliv- 
erance or  epoch  of  victory,  Jesus  does  not  question. 
But  his  teaching  takes  a  wider  sweep,  and  sets  forth 


1  Jn.  6 :  39,  40,  44,  64. 
2Jn.  5:28,29. 


3Jn.  11:24. 
*  Jn.  11 :  25,  26. 


THE  RESURRECTION  AND  JUDGMENT     181 

fthe  more  inclusive  truth  that  this  resurrection  is  a^ 
(victory  of  life  that  may  already  begin  here. 

It  will  be  noticed  how  predominantly  ethical  or  Jesus' 
qualitative  is  Jesus'   doctrine  of  life  and  of  death,   p^edomi- 
IWith  him  the  questions  concerning  the  future  are  not'  nantiy 
j^questions  about  times  and  places.     He  lays  no  stress, ;  ®^  ^^^  ' 
as  did  Paul,  upon  the  mere  corporeal  aspect  of  resur- 
rection.    He  says  nothing  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
body  though    we    may  well    suppose  that  the   idea 
included  for  him  the  clothing  of  the  soul  in  a  suit- 
able embodiment.     The  point  to  be   noticed  is  that 
his  conception  of  resurrection  was  comprehensive.     It] 
was  victory  over  death,  with  whatever  incidents  and 
experiences  that  might  involve.     Hence  we  see  why. 
he  speaks  almost  exclusively  of  the  resurrection  of  j 
"  the  just,"  or  of  those  who  have  received  the  eternalj 
life.     He  contemplates  resurrection  as  a  part  of  God's 
gracious  bestowment  of  life ;  he  grounds  it  in  him  whol 
lives  and  who  is  the  Source  and  Giver  of  life.     That] 
those  who  refuse  the  life  vanish  at  death,  experiencing 
nothing  that  may  be  called  resurrection,  Jesus  does 
not  say.     They,  too,  are  contemplated  as  surviving] 
death,  but  what  are  the  nature  and  accompaniments! 
of  that  "  resurrection  of  judgment "  which  they  expe-j'' 
rience  we  are  not  told.     The  veil  is  drawn  and  their! 
fate  is  hidden. 

The  idea  of  a  future  "  day  of  judgment "  was  a  The  "  day  of 
current  Jewish   conception.     It  was  popularly  asso-  joilowfng" 
ciated  with  Messiah's   coming,  when  he  would  con-  the  advent, 
demn  and  punish  Israel's  enemies.     The  Synoptists, 
especially  Matthew,  attribute  to  Jesus  the  idea  of  a 
future  judgment  day,  following  his  own  second  advent. 
This   conception  was   universal  in  the  apostolic  age. 
The  relevant  passages  are  closely  connected  with  the 
sayings  about  the  parousia  which  we  examined  in  the 
last  chapter,  and  many  of  the  difficulties  there  found 


182 


TEE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


The  parable 
of  judgment. 


Three 
interpreta- 
tions : 
(1)  judg- 
ment of 
Christians 
only. 


(2)   of 
heathen. 


also  apply  to  them.  Matthew  connects  a  number 
of  sayings  of  Jesus  with  "  the  day  of  judgment,"  of 
which  no  such  application  is  made  in  the  parallel 
passages.^  In  Matthew  we  even  read  that  "  every  one 
who  is  angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger  of 
the  judgment."  ^ 

It  is  also  the  first  Gospel  alone  which  has  pre- 
sented to  us,  in  connection  with  the  parousia  discourse, 
a  parable  of  the  judgment  in  which  all  the  nations  are 
described  as  appearing  before  the  Son  of  man,  who  sits 
upon  his  glorious  throne,  and  separates  them  as  a  shep- 
herd divides  the  sheep  from  the  goats.^  Interpreters 
are  much  divided  respecting  the  intention  of  this 
passage. 

Three  general  views  are  current:  (1)  Some*  hold 
that  this  parable  is  a  picture  of  the  judgment  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  only,  by  which  the  counterfeit  are 
distinguished  from  the  genuine  by  the  tests  of  love 
and  service.  The  accepted  are  called  "  blessed  of  my 
Father,"  "  righteous,"  and  "  my  brethren,"  for  whom 
the  kingdom  had  been  prepared  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,^  terms  which  can  naturally  designate 
only  believers,  while  the  rejected  are  described  as 
calling  Jesus  "  Lord  "  and  as  claiming  to  be  among 
his  disciples.^ 

(2)  Others^  maintain  that  the  description  relates 
specifically  to  the  judgment  of  the  heathen,  some* 
holding  that  it  is  the  judgment  of  such  heathen  as 
have  come  into  contact  with  Christian  believers  ("  my 
brethren  "),  and  others,^  that  all  heathen  are  compre- 
hended because  Christ's  "brethren"  are  not  limited 


1  Cf .  Matt.  7  :  21-23  with  Lk.  13 :  25-27  ;  Matt.  12 :  33-37  with 
Lk.  6 :  43-45.  2  Matt.  5  :  22.  »  Matt.  25 :  31-46. 

*  E.g.  Meyer  and  Weiss.  ^  Verse  44, 

6  Verses  34,  37,  40.  '  E.g.  Bruce,  Wendt,  and  Forrest, 

8  So  Wendt.  ^  So  Bruce. 


THE  RESURRECTION  AND  JUDGMENT     183 

to  believers,  but  include  all  men.  This  general  view  is 
thought  to  be  favored  by  the  phrase,  all  the  '^  nations," 
which  is  taken  in  its  very  frequent  meaning,  the 
Gentiles.  It  is  further  pointed  out  that  those  to  whom 
Christ  is  known  are  judged  by  their  acceptance  or 
denial  of  him,^  while,  elsewhere,  heathen  are  repre- 
sented as  approved  or  condemned  according  to  their 
treatment  of  his  disciples.^  Especially  striking  is 
the  parallel  in  Matt.  10 :  42 :  "  And  whosoever  shall 
give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup  of 
cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward." 

(3)  The  more  common  view  is  that  the  passage  (3)  of  all 
describes  the  judgment  of  all  mankind."'^  Indeed, 
most  scholars  *  who  give  it  a  more  limited  application 
admit  that,  in  its  present  form,  it  is  intended  to 
describe  a  universal  judgment.  Their  theories  relate 
to  its  original  intention,  which  they  seek  to  discover 
behind  its  present  aspect  of  universality.  The  con- 
nection of  the  parable  with  the  parousia  and  the 
natural  force  of  the  phrase,  "  all  the  nations,"  cer- 
tainly favor  the  conception  of  a  universal  judgment. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  harmonize  with 
Jesus'  teaching  as  a  whole  the  idea  that  the  eternal 
destiny  of  men  is  determined  by  works  of  charity 
alone. 

Each  one  of  the  three  views,  when  strictly  applied,   Arguments 
encounters    considerable    difficulties.      If    professing;  against  each 
Christians  only  were  in  view,  why  should  those  who.  view, 
are  judged  be  distinguished  from  the  "  brethren  "  of  ^ 
Jesus,  and  why  should  they  be  represented  as  unaware 
of  the  nature  and  object  of  their  good  deeds?     If,  on 

1  Matt.  10 :  32,  33. 
a  Matt.  10:  40-42  ;  Lk.  10:  12-16. 
■  So,  e.g.,  Morison  and  Broadus. 
*  So  Weiss,  Wendt,  and  Beyschlag. 


184  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

the  other  hand,  non-Christians  alone  were  thought  of, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  why  this  class  should  not  have 
been  more  plainly  indicated.     In  view  of  all  the  con- 
siderations affecting  the  question,  I  am  inclined  to 
think  that  we  cannot  fairly  derive  more  from  the  pas- 
sage than  a  principle  of  judgment.     It  is  a  pictorial] 
description  of  man's  relation  to  his  deeds,  illustrating,| 
lespecially,  how  small  acts  of  kindness  and  mercy  may' 
be  an  index  of  the  deepest   principles   and  motives 
Iwhich  rule  the  life.     The  description  of  the   deedsl 
aone  need  not  be  regarded  as  presenting  the  only  test 
and  measure  which  will  be  applied  to  men  and  their 
conduct.     It  is  not  improbable  that  the  parable  origi- 
nally referred  to  some  specific  relations  or  situation, 
like  the  saying  in  Matt.  10 :  42,  of  which  it  may  be 
regarded  as  an  expansion.     We  can  only  say  that,  as 
it  stands,  it  was  conceived  as  a  description  of  a  gen- 
eral assize,  but  that  it  describes  the  application  of 
only  one  of  those  tests  by  which  Christ  was  wont  to 
determine  the  characters  of  men. 
Judgment  in       We  have  seen  that  in  the  Johannine  tradition  both 
Gospd^^^       the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  resurrection  are  more 
comprehensively  viewed  than  in  the  Synoptic  reports 
of  Jesus'   words.      There   are    other   " comings''   of 
Christ  besides  that  at  the  end  of  the  age ;  the  resur- 
rection is  involved  in  the  present  bestowment  and 
possession  of  eternal  life.     There  is  something  analo- 
gous to  these  examples  in  the  Johannine  representa- 
Judgment  a    tion  of  judgment.    The  judgment  of  men  is  proceeding 
present  fact.  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^ .  u^^q^  jg  the  judgment  of  this  world ; "  ^ 
"  As  I  hear,  I  judge :  and  my  judgment  is  righteous ; "  ^ 
"Yea  and  if  I  judge,  my  judgment  is  true;"^  "For 
judgment  came  I  into  this  world."  ^    This  conception 
of  a  present  judgment,  wrought  by  the  power  of  the 

ijn.  12:31.  8Jn.  8:16. 

2  Jn.  5 :  30.  *  Jn.  9 :  39. 


THE  RESUBBECTION  AND  JUDGMENT     185 

truth  to  compel  decision,  is  thus  summarized  by  the 
author  of  the  Gospel,  "And  this  is  the  judgment, 
that  the  light  is  come  into  this  world,  and  men  loved 
the  darkness  rather  than  the  light;  for  their  works 
were  evil."  ^  A  process  of  judgment,  then,  is  insepa- 
SFable  from  the  work  of  salvation.  The  light  neces^ 
Isarily  judges  because  it  reveals.  In  this  sense,  though 
^Christ  came  not  to  judge  but  to  save  the  world,^  judg- 
jment  was  unavoidably  involved  in  his  work.  He 
jmust  divide  men  into  those  who  accept  and  those  who 
tefuse  the  light  of  his  saving  truth. 

This  thought  of  a  continuous,  present  judgment  does  Present  and 
not  exclude  the  conception  of  a  future,  final  judgment,   judgments 
If  the  judgment  of  this  world  is  now  taking  place,^  notirrecon- 
there  is  also  to  be  a  judgment  "  in  the  last   day."  *  ^^  ^   ®* 
The  continuous  testing  by  which  the  destinies  of  men 
are  being  determined  terminates  in  a  crisis  —  in  a 
future  judgment,  which  is  the  goal  of  the  process  of 
judgment  which  is  going  forward  constantly  in  the 
life  of  every  man. 

It  is  only  by  means  of  a  comprehensive  idea  of  Discrepan- 
judgment  that  we  are  able  to  resolve  the  seeming  con-  rggoi'ved? 
tradictions  between  the  statements :  Jesus  did  not 
come  to  judge,  and  for  judgment  did  he  come  into 
the  world ;  judgment  is  present,  and  it  is  reserved  for 
a  future  "day."  There  is  yet  one  other  discrepancy 
to  be  resolved.  We  are  told  that  all  judgment  has 
been  committed  to  the  Son,*  but,  elsewhere,  that  it 
fis  not  he,  but  his  truth,  that  judges  men :  "  If  any  man] 
jhear  my  sayings  and  keep  them  not,  I  judge  him  not,l 
.the  word  that  I  spake,  the  same  shall  judge  him  inj 
[the  last  day."  •  It  is  his  truth  that  judges  men ;  that] 
is,  the  attitude  of  men  toward  his  truth  —  the  abso- 
lute standard  of  goodness  —  necessarily  involves  their 

iJn.  3:19.  «Jn.  12:31.  ejn.  5:22. 

2Jn.  3:17;  12:47.  *Jn.  12:48.  •  Jn.  12 : 47,  48. 


186 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS 


judgment.  Christ's  purpose  is  to  save,  but  he  cari 
save  only  by  winning  men  to  the  life  of  holy  love.j 
The  demands  of  this  life  impose  tests  upon  men,  andj" 
their  acceptance  or  rejection  of  those  demands  places! 
them  either  on  the  right  hand  or  the  left. 

The  judgment  shall  issue  in  a  just  recompense  of 
reward  or  penalty  according  to  men's  deeds.^  Destiny 
shall  be  the  fruitage  of  the  life.  More  than  this  gen- 
eral principle  we  may  not  deduce  from  the  relevant 
passages  without  unwarrantably  applying  to  their 
figurative  language  the  categories  of  time  and  of 
place.  The  Gehenna  which  is  set  over  against  the 
life  of  love  and  self-denial  is  a  symbol  of  the  conse- 
quences of  refusing  to  serve  and  suffer  for  one's  own 
and  others'  good.^  Neither  the  context  nor  the  paral- 
lels in  Matthew^  favor  the  idea  that  the  figures  of 
the  fire  and  the  worm  are  meant  to  describe  final  des- 
tiny. Nor  can  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment 
and  of  the  necessary  fixity  of  destiny  at  death  be 
legitimately  built  upon  the  word  "  eternal,"  both  be- 
cause it  is  itself  too  indefinite  a  word,  and  because 
it  is  but  the  Greek  translation  of  a  still  more  indefi- 
nite Aramaic  term.  Both  the  rewards  and  the  penal- 
ties of  the  world  to  come  are  eonian  (eternal) ;  they 
are  those  which  belong  to  the  great  coming  eon,  the 
epoch  toward  which  the  longings  of  all  hearts  were 
directed,  the  age  of  Messiah's  coming,  victory,  and 
judgment. 

The  life,  then,  which  is  begun  here  is  to  continue, 
since  God  is  the  God  of  the  living ;  the  life  of  man  is 
not  "rounded  with  a  sleep,"  but  persists  and  shall 
conquer  death,  and  in  the  world  to  come  shall  reap 
its  appropriate  fruitage.  These  are  the  principles  in 
which  is  rooted  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  resur- 
rection and  the  judgment. 

1  Matt.  16 :  27.         «  Mk.  9 :  47,  48.  »  Matt.  5 :  29,  30. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  E.  A.,  19 
Adamson,  T.,  95 
Alexander,  G.,  47,  81 
Apocalypse,  a  supposed  Jewish, 

168 
Apocalyptic  use  of  *  Son  of  man," 

90 
Appel,  81 
"Aramaic  theory"  of  "Son  of 

man,"  8S  sq. 
Asceticism,  123 

Bacon,  B.  W,,  19,  31 
Baldensperger,  W.,  1,  60,  81,  89, 

160, 161 
Barnasha,  88  sq. 
Bartlet,  J.  V.,  81 
Baur,  F.  C,  87 
Beyschlag,  W.,  47,  89,  117,  130, 

140,  150,  161,  166, 183 
Binding  and  loosing,  153 
Bleek,  F.,  167 

Blood,  "  shed  for  many,"  144 
Bousset,  W.,  1,  49,  59,  65,  67, 168 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  38 
Broadus,  J.  A.,  183 
Brooks,  P.,  183 
Brown,  W.  A.,  161 
Bruce,  A.  B.,  31,  47,  53,65,  68,  95, 

106, 130, 140,  150 

Candlish,  R.  S.,  58,  70 
Ceremonial  law,  Jesus'  attitude 

toward,  53 
Charity,  137 
Charles,  R.  H.,  59,  81,  84,  89,  96, 

161,  166, 168, 174, 179 


Cheyne,  T.  K.,  38 

Children,  Jesus'  treatment  of, 
114, 115 

Christology,  beginnings  of,  103 

Church,  the,  Jesus'  teaching  con- 
cerning, 150  sq. ;  the  Jewish, 
158 ;  perpetuity  of,  159,  160 

Civil  government,  124 

Coming,  the  second,  161  sq. ;  to 
occur  soon,  162 ;  theories  con- 
cerning, 165  sq. ;  twofold  con- 
ception of,  172 ;  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  174,  175 

Commission,  the  great,  158 

Community,  the  believing,  150  «g. 

Cone,  O.,  19,  92,  140,  177 

Congregation,  the,  150  sq. 

Crawford,  T.  J.,  70 

Criticism,  verdict  of,  on  the  **  sec- 
ond coming,"  172 

Davidson,  S.,  176 

Day  of  resurrection,  180 

Dalman,  G.,  58,  84,  88,  95,  96,  97, 
100,  102 

Death,  of  Jesus,  saving  signifi- 
cance of,  142  sq.;  of  Jesus, 
theories  concerning,  145  5g.  ; 
according  to  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, 146;  its  relation  to  his 
life,  148;  to  the  nature  of 
God,  148, 149 

Denney,  J.,  58 

Depravity,  total,  not  taught  by 
Jesus,  113 

Divorce,  121 

Driver,  S.  R.,  38 


187 


188 


INDEX 


Drummond,  J.,81,  84 
Drummond,  R.  J.,  69 

Ecclesia,  150  sq. 
Eerdmans,  88 
Enoch,  Book  of,  90,  96 
Esdras,  2,  90,  96 
Estes,  D.  F.,  47 

Fairbairn,  A.  M.,  1 

Family,  121 

Farrar,  F.  W.,  35 

Fasting,  Jesus'  estimate  of,  50 

Fatherhood   of    God,    in   Jesus' 

teaching,  70  sq.;  its  scope. 

72,  73 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  166 
Forgiveness,  134, 135 
Forrest,  D.  W,,  177 

Gay  ford,  S.  C,  150 

Gilbert,  G.  H.,  177 

God,  as  Israel's  Father  only,  3  ; 
transcendence  of,  in  Juda- 
ism, 4;  fatherhood  of,  10  sq. 

Goodspeed,  G.  S.,  1 

Good  works,  atoning  value  of, 
in  Jewish  theology,  15 

Gospel,  the  fourth,  peculiarities 
of,  29,  32 ;  on  the  fatherhood 
of  God,  73  sq. ;  on  the  "  com- 
ing "  of  Christ,  174, 176 ;  doc- 
trine of  resurrection  in,  179; 
of  judgment,  184,  185 
Gospels,  the,  19  sq. ;  motives  to 
their  composition,  21,  22;  pa- 
tristic testimony  concerning, 
22-24 ;  two-source  theory  of, 
25;  dates  of,  28;  historicity 
of.  28 
Gould,  E.  P.,  47 
Grace,  139 
Gunkel,  H.,  88 

Hall,  F.  J.,  118 

Harnack,  A.,  29,  36, 58, 70,  92,  95, 

104,  106,  117 
Hase,  K,,  167 
Haupt,  E.,  161 
Hausrath,  A.,  1 


Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  19,  47,  67.  89 

160,168 
Holy  Spirit,  the  sin  against,  114 
Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  67,  142,  150 
Horton,  R.  F.,  58,  68,  130,  140. 

150,  166,  176 
Hovey,  A.,  118 

Irenseus,  22,  23 
Issel,  E.,  58,  65,  67 


Jacob,  L.,  47 

Jerusalem,  overthrow  of,  162 
Jesus,   his    teaching   contrasted 
with  Judaism,  5 ;  his  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiah's  calling, 
12,13;  fulfils  the  Old  Testa- 
ment concept  of,  14 ;  his  oral 
method  of  teaching,  19,  20; 
his  method  in  general,  33  sq.  ] 
contrasted  with  that  of  the 
scribes,  34;  its  outward  forms, 
37  sq. ;  his  teaching  concern- 
ing the  Old  Testament,  47  sq.; 
as  the  revealer  of  God,  79  sq. ; 
his  self-testimony,  85  s?. ;  his 
estimate  of  man,  106  sq. ;  his 
view  of  nature,  118  sq.;  of 
social  life,  120;  teaching  con- 
cerning   righteousness    and 
love,  130  sg.,-  concerning  sal- 
vation,  140  sq.;    his   refer- 
ences to  the  Church,  150  sq. ; 
on    his    "second    coming," 
161  sq. ;  on  resurrection  and 
judgment,  177  sq. 
Jewish  religious  beliefs  in  Jesus' 
age,  Isq.;  history  and  litera- 
ture, references   to,  in    the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  125  sq. 
Jonah-sign,  125 

Judgment,  doctrine  of,  182-184; 
in  the    fourth    Gospel,  184,' 
185 ;  issues  of,  186 
Julicher,  A.,  19,  28,  33 

Kaftan,  J.,  65 
Kant,  130 


INDEX 


189 


Keim,  T.,  166 

Keys,  the  power  of,  154 

Kidd,  J.,  58,  69 

Eangdom  of  God,  as  conceived 
in  Judaism,  7, 9 ;  Jesus'  teach- 
ing concerning,  58  sq. ;  in  the 
Old  Testament,  59 ;  in  popu- 
lar Jewish  thought,  60;  its 
various  aspects,  Q^  sq. ;  defi- 
nitions of,  67  sq. ;  and  the 
Church,  156 

Kingman,  H.,  161 

Knowledge,  Jesus',  problem  of, 
117 

Krop,  E.,  58,  89 

Law,  Jesus'  fulfilment  of,  54  sq. 

Legal  tendency,  in  Judaism,  2, 
48 

Legalism,  139 

Lietzmann,  H.,  81,  88 

Life,  the  future,  in  Jesus'  teach- 
ing, 115,  116 

Lightfoot,  J.,  121,  153 

Lock,  W.,  81 

Logia,  The,  24 

Love,  132  sq.;  138,  139 

Luke,  Gospel  of,  27 

Lutgert,  W.,  58,  67 

McGiffert,  A.  C,  166 

Mackintosh,  R.,  47,  56 

Man,  Jesus'  estimate  of,  106  sq. 

Mark,  patristic  testimony  con- 
cerning, 22 :  relation  to  Luke, 
23 ;  characteristics  of,  26 

Martineau,  J.,  88- 

Mathews,  S.,  1,  2,  7,  33,  35,  58, 
65,  68,  100 

Matthew,  early  tradition  con- 
cerning, 23;  characteristics 
of,  26;  representations  of 
second  coming,  170 

Mead,  C.  M.,  70 

Messiah,  Jewish  doctrine  of,  10, 
popular  view  of,  reflected  in 
the  New  Testament,  12 

Messianic  hope,  in  Israel,  Usq.; 


Messianic  meaning  of  "  Son  of 

man,"  90  sq. 
Meyer,  65,  167 
Montefiore,  5 
Moorhouse,  J.,  117 
Morison,  J.,  183 

Nature,    Jesus'    references    to, 

117  sq. 
Neander,  A.,  87, 166 
Nosgen,  K.  F.,  88 

Old  Testament,  Jesus'  teaching 

concerning,  47  sq. 
Orr,  J.,  65,  69 

Papias,  22 

Parables,  Jesus'  use  of,  39  sq. ; 
distinguished  from  the  fable, 
myth,  proverb,  and  allegory, 
40-42 ;  interpretation  of,  42- 
45 ;  applied  to  second  coming, 
174 ;  of  judgment,  182 

Paroysia,  see  Coming,  second. 

Pascal,  105 

Patience,  136 

Paulus,  88 

Peabody,  F.  G.,  65, 106, 117 

Pericope  adulterse.  111  sq. 

Peter,  the  rock-apostle,  153;  pri- 
macy of,  154 

Possession,  demoniacal,  127  sq. 

Property,  private,  122 

Prophecy,  "  perspective  of,"  168 

Prophetic  tendency,  in  Judaism, 
3,48 

Ransom,  146 

Religion,  the,  of  a  good  life, 
12Asq. 

Resurrection,  doctrine  of,  177  sq. ; 
in  Jewish  thought,  178 ;  uni- 
versal or  limited,  178;  in 
fourth  Gospel,  179 

Reuss,  E.,  87 

Righteousness,  Jewish  doctrine 
of,  16;  in  Jesus'  teaching, 
IMsq. 


190 


INDEX 


Ritschl,  A.,  65,  67 

Sabbath,  the,  in  Jesus'  teaching, 
53 

Sacrifice,  Jesus'  teaching  con- 
cerning, 51 ;  law  of,  143 

Sadducees,  their  denial  of  the 
future  life,  115 

Salmon,  G.,  19 

Salmond,  S.  D.  F.,  161, 177 

Salvation,  late  Jewish  doctrine 
of,  14, 15, 17 ;  Jesus'  doctrine 
of,  140  sq. 

Sanday,  W.,  19,  33,  58,  65,  66,  70 

Schliermacher,  167 

Schmidt,  N.,  81,  88 

Schmiedel,  P.  W.,  19 

Schmoller,  0.,58,  65,  67 

Schultz,  H.,  77 

Schurer,  E.,  1,  2,  7,  38,  49,  58, 
84 

Schwartzkopff,  P.,  161 

Seeley,  J.  R.,  58,  111,  130,  150, 159 

Service,  law  of,  144 

Sin,  Jesus'  doctrine  of,  137  sq. ; 
against  the  Holy  Spirit,  114 

Sinners,  in  the  popular  judgment 
and  in  that  of  Jesus,  109 

Social  life,  Jesus'  view  of,  120 

Son  of  God,  its  meaning  in  the 
Old  Testament,  95, 96 ;  in  the 
apocalyptic  books,  96;  use 
of,  in  the  Synoptics,  97  sq. ; 
New  Testament  use  of,  dis- 
tinguished from  that  of  specu- 
lative theology,  102 

Son  of  man,  use  of,  in  the  Gospels, 
81;  in  the  Old  Testament, 
82 ;  apparent  threefold  mean- 
ing of,  85,  86 ;  in  the  fourth 


Gospel,  86 ;  theories  concern- 
ing, ^1  sq. 

Sonship,  of  men,  to  God,  75  sq. 

Spirit-world,  Jesus'  references 
to,  127 

Stalker,  J.,  81,  88,  89,  95, 140, 177 

Stanton,  V.  H.,  7,  59,  84,  87 

Stapfer,  E.,  35,  51,  53 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  88 

Teaching,  of  Jesus,  methods  of, 
33  sq. ;  saving  significance 
of,  141.    See  special  topics 

Thayer,  J.  H.,  33 

Titius,  A.,  58 

Toy,  C.  H.,  1,  118 

Trench,  R.  C,  33,  42 

Uloth,  88 

Virtues,  the  passive,  136 

Weber,  F.,  1,  7 

Weiffenbach,  E.  W.,  168 

Weiss,  B.,  39,  47,  53,  89,  135,  150, 
166,  183 

Weiss,  J.,  58,  65,  67,  89 

Weizsacker,  K.,  168 

Wellhausen,  J.,  81,  88 

Wendt,  H.  H.,  1,  19,  33,  35,  48, 
58,  65,  68,  88,  95,  106,  117, 
127, 135, 140, 150, 166, 168, 183 

Wernle,  P.,19 

Westminster  catechism,  115 

Woods,  F.  H.,  19 

Words,  moral  significance  of,  108 

Worship,  137 

Wright,  A.,  19 

Zahn,  T.,  28 


V^-'  OF  THE         ' 

UNIVERSITY 


New  Testament   Handbooks 


EDITED   BY 

SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  InterpretaHon, 
University  of  Chicago 

Arrangements  are  made  for  the  following  volumes,  and  the  publishers 
will,  on  request,  send  notice  of  the  issue  of  each  volume  as  it  appears  and 
each  descriptive  circular  sent  out  later;  such  requests  for  information 
should  state  whether  address  is  permanent  or  not :  — 

The  History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 

New  Testament 
Prof.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
Union  Theological  Seminary.  \_Notv  ready. 

Professor  Vincent's  contributions  to  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  rank  him 
among  the  first  American  exegetes.  His  most  recent  publication  is  "  A  Critical 
and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Philemon  " 
{^International  Critical  Comjnentary),  which  was  preceded  by  a  "  Students' 
New  Testament  Handbook,"  *'  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,"  and 
others. 

The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 

New  Testament 
Prof.  Henry  S.  Nash,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Cambridge  Divinity  School.  [^Now  ready. 

Of  Professor  Nash's  "  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience,"  The  Outlook  said:  "  The 
results  of  Professor  Nash's  ripe  thought  are  presented  in  a  luminous,  compact, 
and  often  epigrammatic  style.  The  treatment  is  at  once  masterful  and  helpful, 
and  the  book  ought  to  be  a  quickening  influence  of  the  highest  kind;  it  surely 
will  establish  the  fame  of  its  author  as  a  profound  thinker,  one  from  whom  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  future  inspiration  of  a  kindred  sort." 

Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  B.  Wisner  Bacon,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Yale  University.  [Now  ready. 

Professor  Bacon's  works  in  the  field  of  Old  Testament  criticism  include  "  The 
Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus,"  and  "  The  Genesis  of  Genesis,"  a  study  of  the 
documentary  sources  of  the  books  of  Moses.  In  the  field  of  New  Testament 
study  he  has  published  a  number  of  brilliant  papers,  the  most  recent  of  which  is 
"The  Autobiography  of  Jesus,"  in  the  American  jf our  nal  of  Theology. 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine 

Prof.  Shailer  Mathews,  Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and 
Interpretation,  The  University  of  Chicago.  {^Now  ready. 

The  Coneregationalist  says  of  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews's  recent  work,  "  The  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus"  :  "  Re-reading  deepens  the  impression  that  the  author  is 
scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and  yet  conservative  and  pre- 
eminently sane.  If,  after  reading  the  chapters  dealing  with  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  man,  society,  the  family,  the  state,  and  wealth,  the  reader  will  not  agree 
with  us  in  this  opinion,  we  greatly  err  as  prophets." 


The  Life  of  Paul 

Prof.  Rush  Rhees,  President  of  the  University  of  Rochester. 

Professor  Rhees  is  well  known  from  his  series  of  "  Inductive  Lessons  "  contributed 
to  the  Sunday  School  Times.  His  "  Outline  of  the  Life  of  Paul,"  privately 
printed,  has  had  a  flattering  reception  from  New  Testament  scholars. 

The  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age 

Dr.  C.  W.  VoTAw,  Instructor  in  New  Testament  Literature,  The 
University  of  Chicago. 

Of  Dr.  Votaw's  "  Inductive  Study  of  the  Founding  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Modern 
Churchy  Edinburgh,  says:  "  No  fuller  analysis  of  the  later  books  of  the  New 
Testament  could  be  desired,  and  no  better  programme  could  be  offered  for  their 
study,  than  that  afforded  in  the  scheme  of  fifty  lessons  on  the  Founding  of  the 
Christian  Church,  by  Clyde  W.  Votaw.  It  is  well  adapted  alike  for  practical 
and  more  scholarly  students  of  the  Bible." 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus 

Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale 
University.  \^Now  ready. 

Professor  Stevens's  volumes  upon  "  The  Johannine  Theology,"  "  The  Pauline  The- 
ology," as  well  as  his  recent  volume  on  "  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament," 
have  made  him  probably  the  most  prominent  writer  on  biblical  theology  in 
America.     His  new  volume  will  be  among  the  most  important  of  his  works. 

The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  E.  P.  Gould,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation.  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.    \_Now  ready. 

Professor  Gould's  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (in  the  International  Criti' 
cal  Commentary')  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  (in  the  Ai)ierican  Com- 
mentary) are  critical  and  exegetical  attempts  to  supply  those  elements  which 
are  lacking  in  existing  works  of  the  same  general  aim  and  scope. 

The  History  of  Christian  Literature  until  Eusebius 

Prof.  J.  W.  Platner,   Professor  of  Early  Church   History,   Harvard 

University. 
Professor  Platner's  work  will  not  only  treat  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian 
writers,  but  will  also  treat  of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  Canon. 

OTHERS  TO    FOLLOW 

**  An  excellent  series  of  scholarly,  yet  concise  and  inexpensive  New  Testament  hand- 
books."—  Christian  Advocate,  New  York. 

"  These  books  are  remarkably  well  suited  in  language,  style,  and  price,  to  all 
Students  of  the  New  Testament."  —  The  Congregationalist,  Boston. 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


?.^^>f 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


MAR    9  1948 

^" 

. 

l91953i« 

^v^^*» 

k       \ 

RECCIR.    JK 

18'75 

LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


YB  27698 


>^^ 


^7   - 


